JWH says that his clamp down on guns in 1996 was a success.
This SMH report would suggest otherwise.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-guns-in-the-hands-of-outlaws/2007/02/09/1170524303919.html

and

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/armed-and-dangerous/2007/02/11/1171128816752.html

What thoughts?

Is Mise, I presume you are a Gaelic speaker as I can say "Is mise JSP1488". Should I address you as "Is tusa"?

Anyway, the gun "buy back" was a flop. What about the thousands of Chinese SKS assault rifles that have never been traced? These were received by our government in compensation for a trade deal that the Chinese reneged on. They were subsequently sold to the public unregistered. Between the SKSs, the article you have brought to our attention and the authorities' inability to control criminal possession of guns,the whole "buy back" was a waste of taxpayers' money and only punished legal legitimate shooters.

The 2003 "buy back" was just as bad. I write "buy back" as I had to surrender a pistol to the police, not the gun store where I had bought it. Call it "confiscation with compensation". The pistol in question was a 40 calibre model with 16 shot magazines, both suddenly declared illegal. I used the compensation cheque issued to buy a 38 calibre pistol with 10 shot magazines which is still legal.

So the government decided that a .400 inch diameter bullet is unacceptable yet a .380 inch bullet is OK (five hair widths of a difference). Also 10 shot mags are acceptable while 16 shot mags aren't. The whole process was illogical. Because of the slightly lower calibre allowed, our sporting shooters cannot compete in the same class as international shooters as the cut-off point is 40 cal.

So much for being a sporting nation.

Does anyone see a sinister side to the push for gun control?

The fact that there have been no massacres since gun laws were introduced would seem to indicate that the gun laws have been successful to some degree. This may be because it has made it harder for the crazed loners who most often commit these massacres to obtain weapons, as opposed to the criminal types who often have criminal connections and know how to obtain illegal weapons but who are only usually interested in criminial pursuits like robbery where they may kill one or two but not dozens.

Loners because they are loners often dont fit in and dont have the social connections to obtain guns through the underground.

The only problem I can see with gun laws is that if you ever end up with a government dictatorship or some kind of coup the ordinary citizens have no weapons to fight with.

I suspect a lot of weapons are hidden away and will suddenly surface though.

Bombs also seem to be a weapon of choice these days

Crazed loners can still obtain guns easily. Bikers have arsenals for use and sale. Many pubs have shady dealers that can supply to order. Just a few days ago, it was on the news that a detective had lost his service pistol. I wonder who has it now. There are still countless thousands of unregistered guns around, as sharkfin pointed out by "a lot of weapons are hidden away and will suddenly surface".

As for the very existence of "crazed loners with guns", here is an interesting site, http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies1.htm
Read and decide for yourselves. Conspiracy theory? Maybe..maybe not.

Finally, as for the possibility of gun control leading to a government dictatorship where the citizens have no weapons to fight with, just remember........POLITICIANS LOVE DISARMED PEASANTS!

I was involved in tracing military weapons stolen from Marybyrnong Weapons cache in the seventies.It was believed yugo's held training camps around the mnt.buffalo area as their was automatic fire heard by the locals, there was no trace of those army rifles found.Where they smuggled out with the trainees to Yugoslavia? Maybe! Cover-up must have been good. Maybe they are still floating around somewhere.Just the other day a bloke got arrested for having a crossbow and a rocket launcher, what's next, a pitchfork?
This a worldwide problem that people are being disarmed and framed, all in the silent name of "crowdcontrol" and "worldorder".Call me rediculous, but is their a better explanation?

JSP1488. No, just a dabbler in Gaelic.

The reduction in calibre was a fine illustration of a group of Polititians getting, or being given, an idea and running with it even though it was flawed.
The idea was to reduce the power of pistols in the hands of licensed shooters; simplest way was percieved to be to make the projectiles smaller.

One good example was the venerable .45 Colt M1911, owners were however able to convert their pistols to .38" and many did by buying a new barrel and having it chambered for what became known as the .38JWH (no prize for knowing what the initials stand for !)
This round is more powerful than the one that it replaced.

Still John Howard regards the calibre reduction as a success; well, it's not every day that one has a pistol round named after one is it?

Bye the bye, I just measured a few hairs and those from my beard average .004" to .005", head .002" to .004". So the calibre reduction wasn't five hairs but only a couple, as I remember the average head hair is .003" in diametre.
Please excuse the use of Imperial units of measurement in this Metric day and age but the various Governments use it in relation to firearms, so I think it's only right to follow suite.

Sharkfin - "The fact that there have been no massacres since gun laws were introduced would seem to indicate that the gun laws have been successful to some degree."

How many massacres have we had? My impression was that they were very rare in Australia anyway.

To me the telling point (and I've seen conflicting claims about this) are in the following questions - is the rate of gun related crime and the overall homicide rate up or down?

R0bert

According to those who know- The jokes on us.

For almost three years we were accomadated by a indoor pistol club.

Strange combination some will say however we were grateful for the office space and support.

At times there would be jolly faces and much excitment.

When we enquired one day after the police had been destroying old arms we got an answer.

It seems you could get a real good price for handing in some old unusable thing and pick up your cheque.

On that day alone it was three hundred and forty thousand.

The guys of course spent the money buying new and quicker weapons.

It didnt stop there.

There was already provishion in the currect act at the time to take back fire arms.

Mmm What some will do for a few votes.

On a personal note I think we are fools not to arm ourselves to protect our familys.

Especially here.

I must say the quality of these threads seems to have picked up.

Even if one doesnt agree with all the comments people seem to be making a real effort.

Good topics too.

Addendum: There is no record that any criminals reduced the calibre (bore diametre) or the magazine capacity of their illegal pistols due to the Governments inititive.

It is still possible to have a pistol above 38 cal. If you shoot Metallic Silhouette or Cowboy Single Action, revolvers in 44 Magnum and 45 Long Colt can legally be owned and used.

As for strict gun laws, the UK's restrictions are more draconian than here, yet have a look at this news item:-

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=427

The laws only restrict the legal sporting shooters.

By the way, Is Mise, the 20 thou difference between 40 and 38 cal equates to five hairs of .004 inch. I, too, was brought up with imperial measurements. The RAAF still uses that system.

This gets better by the day:

2GB (Sydney)
Sydney Drivetime - 12/02/2007 - 05:21 PM Program Preview.
Clark says we thought the gun buy-back had collected over 600,000 weapons,
all of which were destroyed. He says however it turns out that is not so and
hundreds of weapons have found their ways back into the hands of criminals.

Clark says he found a story by Les Kennedy in the Herald on the weekend
pretty alarming. He says it seems hundreds of guns in the gun buyback system
were not destroyed, but instead redistributed by crooked gun dealers. Clark
interviews Roy Smith, Executive Director, Sporting Shooters Association of
Australia, about the story. Smith says Clark will have to ask the government
why the guns were not crushed immediately. He says they are not surprised.
Clark says the bureaucracy is stupid and asks what can you trust them with.
Smith says this is not the first time it happened and one of the firearms
used at Port Arthur had actually been handed in in a Victorian buyback a few
years earlier. Smith admits the scope of the operation would put pressure on
police but says you would think they could get it right. He says he is sure
there are other examples. He says over-legislating forces firearms into the
black market. He says all of these guns were registered and legally held and
they have now been forced underground.

Interviewees: Roy Smith, Executive Director, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.

By a hair's breadth!!.
Sorry about that JSP1498, have put the arithmetical disc back into the brain slot.

I'm often quite amused by the flimsy arguments used by the gun lobby.

I dunno about you JSP, but I tend to think things a little more nuanced than having armed or disarmed peasants.

Of course, the risk of the government making an invasion with the army is so great, we should just allow everyone to have guns.

Have you not seen the rate of homicide in the US? Have you not read the statistics, how you're more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar.

How kids in gangs are shooting one another because they can.

Sure - some guns still get out there... so what's the gun lobby solution? Make em easier to get.

Honestly.

TRTL,

Can you tell me if there is any way that a slightly built woman can protect herself from a strong heavy man intent on rape or worse apart from dialling '000'?

Just found this during a 'Curiosity' visitto The Shooters Party site.

Aubrey John Sonnenberg
Newbie

Karma: +0/-0
[applaud] [smite]
Posts: 1

International competitive shooters
« on: 19 February 2007, 20:07:17 » (Quote)

I know everyone has their personal gripes re the anti-gun laws, this one is mine, and I'm not suggesting it's better than anyone else's:

I happen to compete in an international rifle discipline, which in the USA allows for self-loading rifles, and the vast majority of shooters compete in the self-loading rifle category. Obviously our gun laws prevent me from competing in the self loading category, because our Police ministers saw fit to decree that self loading rifles could not be used for target shooting. However, pistol and shotgun competitors are able to use self loading equipment for their local and international competitions.

Seems like rifle competitors are being unfairly discriminated against, as there is no justification given for why a self loading rifle is any more of a risk to society that a self-loading pistol or shotgun. This is quite apart from the fact that bona fide international competitors are a small and well defined group. The Police know who we are and where we live, and furthermore no one is suggesting that anyone be given access to these firearms, so what's the risk?

Cynically, the risk is that the politicians could not justify to the left wing why "assault rifles" are being allowed onto our streets, the normal lies and distortions. So it seems yet again that the law abiding majority are being held to ransonm by the spineless government on behalf of the left wing extremists.

Make sure you vote for the Shooters Party, this nonsense has to be stopped.
Aubrey (unquote)

This could be one of those funny arguments from 'the gun lobby'...whoever they are.

Is Mise, its called "mace", or pepper spray, or even a taser. Currently, there are a number of non-lethal means of defending oneself. Some legal, some not, why don't the proponents for "self-defence" of fragile little women try to lobby for those? Oh thats right, guns don't kill people, they just make someone feel more secure.

Is Mise
"Can you tell me if there is any way that a slightly built woman can protect herself from a strong heavy man intent on rape or worse apart from dialling '000'?"

See my response to a similar question you posted on another thread recently.

Is your question here a suggestion that you should be able to carry a gun in public places to protect yourself against a possible attack?

If so how do I protect myself against a nervous slightly built woman "packing heat" who decides that my early morning walk is actually a potential rape?

If guns are more accessable how does your gun in your handbag help you against the rapist who gets their gun out first?

If you are carrying a gun in an accessable location (and it's ready for use) how do you stop your child getting at it as a plaything (and if not yours then some other slightly built woman's child)?

My understanding is that carrying a weapon for self defence carries with it a high risk of it being used against you - the attacker is sure that they are an attacker, you can't be sure untill they have attacked by which time it may be too late.

Keeping weapons around for self defense carries a high risk that the person shot will be a family member or an innocent doing something a bit unusual at a time when the person carrying the gun is feeling unsettled.

R0bert

Is Mise: "TRTL,

Can you tell me if there is any way that a slightly built woman can protect herself from a strong heavy man intent on rape or worse apart from dialling '000'? "

Oh okay, nevermind, heck, just give em both guns. that'll sort the situation out.

You can claim it will allow her to defend herself.

I can just as easily argue it will allow him to shoot her. And anyone else he feels like.

The more guns = the easier they are to access = the more being used = more people shot.

I look at every country with lax gun laws and see they are all worse off. It is madness to advocate the introduction of more devices that are designed to kill people.

I think that most people in Australia will agree that carrying a gun for self defence is not really the way we would like to see our society run.

The real argument that the gun lobby has, is the sporting interests and business interests of gun owners. Yes, I smile when I see business interests now, but I dont mean drug-runners, I mean farmers. Using a rifle or a shotgun to dispatch injured animals, or to take out ferals should be quite legitimate. Shooting of ferals is certainly more humane than poison (which is the other alternative).

Other gun owners enjoy target shooting, and hunting (again, normally feral animals). Some seem to think these activities should be banned because they dont agree with them. Well, I dont like surfing or golf, but someone else can go ahead if that floats their boat.

If some people have a legitimate reason to own a gun (and sometimes large calibres are required - think shooting feral pigs happens with an air-rifle?), then let them have it. Licence them, require them to have storage standards and transportation standards and check up on them occasionally. Its those that arent prepared to licence their guns that I would be more worried about.

Hey! all I did was ask the question.
OK so it's a bad thing to enable people to have the means of self defence.

But if they can't defend themselves who is going to do it for them?

The police?

Is Mise, I guess the answer to that is that no-one really defends us. We need to not put ourselves in danger, as much as is reasonable (given that you still have to live your life). The police arent for protection - their for rounding up the perpetrators. Oh, and I think they are supposed to be a deterrant (supposed to).

But I just dont see the self defence argument for guns. Not in the home or on the street (or any where else). Yes this will leave people vunerable, but we are better off trying to build a society that respects the individual and doesnt create a need for crime (wow, just re-read and must be feeling quite deep today!).

That said, I did see a good sign once "This house is patrolled by Winchester security three nights a week - you guess which ones"

The problem, Is Mise, is that guns aren't just a means for self defence - pretending that that is all they are, isn't being up front about the situation. If they were, then all would be bright and rosy.

Guns are a device designed to shoot people. They can be used for much more than just defence.

Answer me this - how do you defend against someone with a gun? With another gun?

All having guns has done, is ratchet up the situation and increased the likelihood of a fatality. More death.

Right now, not many Australians are mugged with firearms - a knife is more common. The idea of a mugger with a gun scares me more than the idea of being able to buy one myself reassures me.

If anyone has some stats here that indicate otherwise feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of shooting deaths in the US each year aren't in self defence. I'll wager most are caused by crime.

Which kind of leaves the self defence argument looking a little hollow.

Turn Right then Left.

In answer to your question. The only defence against a gun is another gun, preferably more powerfuf, more accurate and with more shots.
That is why policemen and soldiers have firearms.

You are quite right to say that the majority of shootings in America are by criminals.
Most defensive use of guns by ordinary citizens goes unreported simply because they aren't fired, their appearance is usually enough to resolve the situation.
Hence no headlines.

One of the best examples of the efficacy of an armed society was NSW prior to the 1960s. Crime was low and massacres were unheard of except for those perpetrated upon Original Australians in the earlier years of settlement.
These were not done predominantly with firearms, after the initial firing the wounded, the children and the older women were dispatched with the sword or the axe. The younger women weren't killed till later, if at all. The most successful of these mass killings didn't involve firearms at all, poison was less messy, more efficient and didn't leave much trace after nature and the dingoes had done their work.

Country Girl,

We can't avoid going out and even if we stay at home, there are such things as home invasions. Moving towards your perfect society we are going to see a lot of innocents die.

We could make a start though,
Who's for disarming the police and the military?

Ahh but Is Mise, the validity of disarming police and military automatically assumes they are without checks and balances.

I rather suspect if Howard tried to instruct the army or police to round up some of his enemies, he'd land himself in a spot of water.

There is I suppose, a degree of risk that their responsibility will erode over time. There is still a high degree of corruption in our police forces, but perhaps not as much as many think.

This is again, a separate issue, motivated largely by self interest rather than a grab for control.

Institutions such as police and the military have a way of swaying like a pendulum. Every know and then something occurs which sparks an enquiry, and it is up to the public to make their voice heard and ensure that the system is reformed when necessary.

I tend to think guns aren't really the issue in these cases - they're simply a tool. The idea of the government seizing control is a throwback to the old colonial days, particularly in the US, where there was paranoia the crown would again take control. In my humble opinion, not particularly applicable today.

That being said - some of country gal's comments are spot on as well. Firearms such as rifles as a tool in country areas are a necessity - wild dogs are a very real problem, certainly in my area.

But that is essentially what we have at the moment, and I tend to think it works pretty well.

TurnRightThenLeft, you are right about the US homicide rate. In fact, Washington DC, with some of the strictest American gun laws, has a high rate of gun crime. Compare that with some states where concealed carry is legal. In these states, muggings are virtually non-existent, as the potential mugger doesn’t know if an intended victim is armed. Kind of knocks your “flimsy arguments used by the gun lobby” statement on the head. In all these years, I’ve managed not to shoot a family member, even if said member is being annoying. As for “so what's the gun lobby solution? Make em easier to get”, I never advocated that. Just don’t make it harder. As it is, a new shooter has to apply for a licence, then attend a TAFE safety course to obtain a licence for rifle and shotgun, classes A and B. To have class C and D (self loading rifles and shotguns) requires being involved in primary industry, so this is not an option for a sporting shooter. To have a pistol licence, class H, first the shooter has to attain A and B as above, then join a pistol club. The senior club captain will coach and instruct the new shooter until happy that he/she is safe and competent. Then an H licence can be obtained. After six months, the shooter can buy his/her own pistol. On top of all this, every time a shooter applies to purchase a gun, there is a 28 day wait for the permit while police conduct background checks. On licence renewal, each year, the same background checks are carried out. I’m sure that you will agree that there are enough checks and balances as it is.

Later, you wrote “Right now, not many Australians are mugged with firearms - a knife is more common.” In a nation with countless thousands of unlicensed guns and other items that evaded destruction post-buy-back, doesn’t that tell you that we are not in danger from guns? Four wheel drives are more dangerous. Many more people are killed by 4WDs than by guns.

Bugsy, the powers that want to limit and eventually stamp out civilian gun ownership would never legalise mace or tasers.

JSP, you are right about the checks and balances required to obtain a licence and gun/s. I come from a farming background, and as such have grown up with guns around. All licenced and registered of course. I agree that the requirements as they stand are stringent enough. No need to make them any harder. The sad fact of the matter is that you cannot legislate against, nor regulate all bad deeds. That's why we have jails. There is always going to be some cowboy lunatic. The idea should be to minimise the chances of some idiot ending up with a gun (legal or otherwise), and then minimise the impact if he does. Our gun laws do quite a reasonable job at that. Does it mean that there will never be another massacre? Nope. But the chances are greatly reduced.

As for advocating staying at home and never going out, I do no such thing. But I dont choose to walk through Kings Cross in the early hours of the morning either. Likewise there are a number of other suburbs and places that I would avoid either entirely or at specific times. That's what I mean about not placing yourself in danger. Home invasions happen - I have been on the receiving end of one. Not fun. But I still take issue with the self-defence argument.

JSP... you've indulged in a bit of selective interpretation there. Allow me to do the same. (Wikipedia: Crime in Washington DC)

"Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years"

"Critics using this example fail to mention that it is relatively easy to obtain guns in neighboring states with laxer gun restriction laws, although it is also true that this very fact shows that the laws have no effect. The inflow of guns purchased outside the city in states where gun restriction laws are less stringent compromises the city's own strict regulations"

JSP: In a nation with countless thousands of unlicensed guns and other items that evaded destruction post-buy-back, doesn’t that tell you that we are not in danger from guns? Four wheel drives are more dangerous. Many more people are killed by 4WDs than by guns.

There may or may not be lots of guns out there. I don't really see how that is a reason to allow more.
It sure as hell doesn't give me any reason not to be concerned about guns.
4wd argument is spurious. By that logic, we should ban knives, hot water and electricity.
Guns, especially handguns, are designed to shoot people. I can't see why we would allow looser laws.

As I said before, the current system isn't bad - I'm in favour of the primary industries having access to firearms. Sporting shooters, less so, but I can countenance it.
Handguns, no. There's no worthwhile reason for them. As I pointed out earlier, the self defence argument is somewhat collapsed by the argument about crime - you can point to washington as one piece, but to do so is to ignore the entire American puzzle, when compared to other nation's gun deaths.

But do we all agree that any person has the right to defend themselves against unlawful attack, even to the point of killing their attacker if the threat is great enough?

TRTL, hand guns are also used in sport shooting events. I see no problem with them from this viewpoint. Also you could argue that a farmer who has to dispatch an injured animal would find it much easier to use a pistol than a longarm (currently they are not allowed to use a pistol for this, I am just posing the argument).

Guns are not designed to shoot people, they are designed to shoot things. Some guns (such as assault rifles) ARE designed to shoot people. I have the same problems with these as you do. But plenty of guns are designed to shoot other things (animals, for whatever reason, targets etc). Saying guns are designed to shoot people is as accurate as saying bullbars are designed to hit pedestrians.

Is Mise, I get your point, but only fully agree if we lived in a lawless society - then we would need lethal force to protect ourselves. Our society has not yet sunk to that level. While-ever we retain a reasonably law-abiding society, the ability of any members to use lethal force against another should be limited. Yes, that may mean that some innocent people will die as a result of being assaulted and unable to defend themselves, but arming all citizens is a step that I just dont see desirable.

The evidence seems to be that the buybacks did nothing useful; on the contrary, they resulted in a net destruction of personal property with almost no benefit measurable. The most pertinent issue is that news media were and are partly culpable for school shootings and gun massacres, by creating incentives and teaching how. Perversely, the reason for a pause in massacres is most likey the media blitz about gun laws over 1996 which reversed their earlier message that had created copycat massacres. See http://www.class.org.au/ideas_kill.htm for more on this.

The main reason for declines in gun death seems to be a shift in suicide method from guns to other means, plus falls in overall suicide. Heavy funding of suicide prevention is therefore likely to produce benefits mistakenly counted for the 'gun buyback'.

I believe that harmonising state laws, background checks and safe storage have probably been beneficial. You can see a mechanism for those to produce an effect. Waiting periods, banning semiautos and many other measures seem to be just raising barriers to entry of the sport.

Time to change the laws: keep what works and throw out what does little good.

I see your point aobut shooting things, countrygal, though I tend to think for use on the land, rifles are a more practical option - plus you can't really conceal one which goes a long way to reducing the likelihood they will be used for crimes.

Yes, people have the right to defend themselves - but that's much easier when you don't have to defend against guns...

TRTL, you seem to be implying that removing guns from ordinary people is the same as making sure ordinary people don't have to defend themselves against attackers with guns. Is that right?

The same logic might work with chainsaws or cars; take them from the ordinary people so they can't cause deaths and injuries with them.

Yet when I cross the road to avoid a tree lopper at work, I trust the drivers to not try and hit me and the chainsaw user to manage his desires to saw off my extremities. What is it that is different to the same person having a gun in the safe at home? Is it possible that the reason for concern over guns is something to do with a flawed model of human behaviour compared with the model you use for other 'dangerous' objects in your neighbors' hands?

Is Mise, agreed for an actual attack but not for the fear of attack (and there is a middle ground in there that is difficult).

The trouble with that is that once the attack has started it's generally to late to go for a gun (unless the attacker is using a gun as well they are probably close enough to take yours away from you).

The temptation then comes to use the gun while you've still got time, to use it as an alternative to other options because you are not sure that the other options will protect you.

As for disarming the police and army (what about security guards).
I've not seen the arguments for and against but I think that the police wear guns in a lot of places where they are extremely unlikely to be required. I'd rather not have people (trained or otherwise) carrying a loaded gun in a crowded mall, on my suburban train etc.

I've not noticed millitary people carrying guns around the streets often (except in special parades).

I'm certainly not convinced of a desire to have security guards wearing sidearms to protect money - I don't want those guns used on a street I'm walking on at the time.

If the law does not allow a normal person to keep a gun for the purpose of protecting their family then I fail to see why protecting cash is more important.

R0bert

Country Gal,
That is just the point. We don't live in a lawless society so why shouldn't the citizens be trusted to have arms to protect themselves if necessary.
Up until 1996 a citizen in NSW could get a 'possess, use and carry' licence for a pistol and many business men and others carried pistols for self protection...that is one of the reasons that they were issued.
There was not mayhem and slaughter in the streets.
Why should a soldier or a policeman be considered any more trustworthy than the ordinary citizen?
If it is something in their training then it would surely be desireable to extend such raining to others in society.

The PM is on record as saying that he hates guns, how much of the draconian legislation that we now have to live with stems from his aversion?
There have been no news items about him forbiding his bodyguards to carry pistols.
Something that he ought to do if he is 'fair dinkum'.

Dick Cheney will be graceing our shores this week; he will, no doubt, be attended by American bodyguards, well armed and ready to shoot to defend his life.
Will these agents have to have licences in NSW?
Will they have to have background checks?
Will they be subject to a 28 day waiting period?

No they won't. They're not Australian citizens and subjecting them to the Law would be an intolerable waste of time, as well as being an un-Matey thing to do.

You're not worth protecting if you're a local and just an ordinary citizen.

In response to the last few posts:

ChrisPer: My argument is simply: less guns = less shooting deaths. Pretty simple I think. The additional complexities you raise are addressed in my next point.

Is Mise, you said: "That is just the point. We don't live in a lawless society so why shouldn't the citizens be trusted to have arms to protect themselves if necessary"

Okay, so the point you envision, is that presumably the responsible people carry guns. In the event they are threatened, their hand can go to the gun holster, and they can protect themselves.

Crime isn't as bad as you seem to think it is. There are a couple of hotspots in the country perhaps, in the larger cities. But it isn't the chaotic wild west that needs guns for people to defend themselves.

Why is this point so often ignored: Our streets are safer than those of America, or any gun-lax nation you care to name. The reason why I consistently bring up the guns are only needed to defend against guns, is because on a simpler, broader level, you need guns to defend against crime. Crime thrives on firearms. Once you introduce guns, the mantra then is justified, because you need to defend against the guns you've introduced.

When it comes to police having guns:

The thing is - this is a profession. In the case of police, they must first have a tertiary education, then they are trained in a form of schooling for police. Their weapons are registered with them as police, and I dare say few police wear their guns in everyday life.
Private citizens with guns wouldn't end up going through this much training. They wouldn't have the same workplace oversight which is present in a profession which uses guns.

The entire argument for guns (not rifles for primary producers) hinges on this idea, that we need a gun to defend ourselves, and it should be a right.
This is predicated on the notion that the society outside your front door is constantly out to get you, and you need this gun or SHOCK HORROR! You'll be attacked!

I don't deny that crime occurs, and sure, when it does we think it'd be nice to have a gun. But it really isn't that bad out there, and when you look at the US and the shooting deaths, it will be much, much, much worse if there are more guns out there.

It really is quite simple: more guns = more people being shot, and as much as you may want to believe otherwise, not all of them are going to be baddies.
Whatever argument you can mount, has to be good enough to get beyond that fact.

My point is that the more guns that there are in responsible hands the less crime.
Ths is true in America where in 38 of the States concealed carry is lawful after issuance of a licence, these States have had a reduction in serious personal crime and home invasions.

England on the other hand has outlawed pistols for civilian use and since doing so their crime rate has soared to the point where London is now more dangerous than New York.

When NSW was awash with guns, comparitively, our crime rate, as far as holdups went was far less. Home invasions weren't heard of.
During WW II when there were far more guns than cars the crime rate was low.

If our police are well trained how is it that they don't seem to show their skills in competition?
One would think that it would be a good thing for public as well as police morale if the police were seen to be top shots.

The Law gives the citizens the right to self defence so who has the right to deny to them the means of such defence?

Did you realise that during WW2, the number of males in the civilian population aged between 18 and 40 were greatly reduced? Amazingly, this also happened between 1914 and 1918!

Also, during the pre-Columbian period in Mesoamerica, the incidences of physical violence were high and human sacrifice was common? Incidentally, gun ownership was very low at the time.

Although police officers don't have shooting events at their games (ie. http://www.2007wpfg.com/), I have noticed that quite a number of police officers have competed in the Olympics and other civilian championships. Thats truly amazing isn't it?

I also loved the chainsaw gag, I'd love to buy a fully automatic chainsaw with armor piercing blades. I'm going duck hunting.

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people.

Hi All

I am a competition shooter and compete in international events. Later this year I will be shooting in one of the biggest competitions in the world in the US. I can't even practice for the events, because the firearms used in competition are banned in Australia. Is that fair?

In regard to self defence, I don't have any of my firearms for that purpose, although I fail to see why I shouldn't. Also banned in Australia are pepper (capsicum) spray, tasers and bullet proof vests. While I don't believe that they are an absolute necessity, why should those items also be banned.

For those who believe that more guns equals more crime - a survey of the FBI that I recently read, found that gun related homicide fell by over 30% from 1992 to 2005. At the same time, there were more than 70 million more firearms sold and registered and gun laws were relaxed while self defence laws were strengthened. If somebody knows the link, please pass it on.

Finally, the first nation to introduce sweeping registration and licensing of firearms was Germany - in 1938 by Adolf Hitler. This was followed by almost every dictatorship or communist government since. Is that where we are headed?

Josh

Josh, while I am not a competition shooter, I am considering becoming an international cockfighting trainer. I understand your pain, I cannot train my bird in Australia either. Hitler was a vegetarian and an environmentalist as well, I am beginning to see a dangerous trend here......

Bugsy

I'm sure Stalin was a wonderful person also. However, it does still seem a symptom of over zealous gaverments to eliminate private ownership of firearms.

Also, whilst I am sure that cockfighting is an honorable pursuit in some areas of south east asia, I would hardly see that as a recognised international sport with Olympic origins. Perhaps you could investigate the topic and present a more reasonable and intelligent arguement next time.

For those who are interested, there are staistics on the US Office of Justice Programs (gov. dept.) website that may prove educational.

Just to note, Canada adopted stringent gun laws similar to Australia's in the mid-90's. Last year the parliment overwhelmingly voted to reverse the legislation due to the fact that in that country, statistics showed that the laws had not impacted on crime. I would recommend that anybody who is interested check out our own statistics. Particularly, there was a statement made by the chief of the Australian Bureau which said that gun related crime had not seen any downward trend as a result of gun legislation since 1996. It also says that mass homicide cannot be quantified due to the fact that it is a freak occurance.

Josh

TurnRightThenLeft, I don’t think that referring to Wikipedia is a reliable method for backing up your claims. Anyone can edit the ”facts” there, and the current version of those “facts” will remain on-line until someone else edits/corrects it. As for my 4wd argument being spurious and “By that logic, we should ban knives, hot water and electricity”, here in our southern state, most knives are suffering bans already, while electricity is being priced through the roof. As for the rest of your claims, other posters have already challenged them so I don’t have to.

Your statement, “Private citizens with guns wouldn't end up going through this much training”, when you compared this to police training is a bit out. Some police only have to qualify once per year to carry a service pistol. Same goes for the RAAF. Sporting shooters can, depending on club availability, shoot most days of the week. I shoot every Saturday as do most of the fellow members of my club.

I think that it would do you no harm to visit your local shooting club and have a go. With an open mind, you might enjoy it and also see that shooters are normal, friendly people, not the imagined gun-crazed-lunatics that the anti-gun-lobby would have you believe. Try it.

Ah, the honourable history of the Olympics makes all sports related arguments valid. Oddly enough, the idea for the Olympic flame came from the Nazis.

I wonder why they don't do nude wrestling or nude athletics any more? Those ancient Greeks sure knew how to operate a semi-automatic shotgun, right enough.

When I said flame, I meant torch relay. A small but vital piece of trivia.

Just a little from the SMH article cited in my first post

Quote.
In evidence presented to the trial, police said official statistics showed handgun violence had increased more than fourfold [that's 400% folks ! !] since 1996.

"The possession and sale of illicit firearms is the subject of intense media, political and community interest and the recent release of statistics by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research clearly indicate the significant rise of handgun-related crimes resulting in violence," Inspector Joseph told the court. Unquote.

Another point of interest, the NSW Parliament (according to the Ch 10 News this evening) has passed special legislation to allow Dick Cheney's 'minders' to carry firearms.
9MSN is running a poll on this and the responce is heavily against the idea.

I agree Wikipedia can be edited - but funnily enough, recent comparisons with the encyclopaedia britannica found that wikipedia was pretty damn accurate. Besides, those two particular nuggets I used are also sourced at the bottom of the article.

I've been to sporting shooting clubs - I don't deny most of the people there are intelligent decent people having a bit of fun.
I've even indulged in a spot of bowhunting, and I've joined others on feral pig shoots.

I know my rhetoric sounds strong; but when it comes to things like rifles and practical uses for them I'm not necessarily opposed.

What I am opposed to, is moves to scale back restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public.
I don't want to live in an Australia, where if I glance across the way in at a footy game I can see a sidearm poking out of the side of someone's holster.
I wouldn't like to see guns on people walking down the street; and I really don't see how people can logically argue this kind of thing will make our streets safer.
I wouldn't gain any comfort knowing there's a revolver in the top drawer, and in the event of a home invasion, I happen to believe we're all better off with either a big dog or an alarm.

TurnRightThenLeft, I don’t think that you’ll ever have to worry about the laws being scaled back so that there are people packing as they stroll the streets or go to the football. None of the previous posters has even suggested this. I don’t feel the need for that. Defending your home is different, though. If I was the victim of a home invasion, I wouldn’t hesitate to blow the invader away.
Just as your average golfer doesn’t walk down the street with an iron , a wood, a wedge and/or a putter, the sporting shooter only uses his guns at shooting events and transports them there and back under secure cover. Allowing us shooters our fun won’t create a Deadwood or Dodge City culture.
As for big dogs, they can be dangerous, just look at how many kids are mauled by them.

What has happened to the rate of accidental deaths from guns over the last thirty years. Does anyone know?

The great gun buy-back was simply a well-intended, poorly thought out, knee-jerk reaction after Port Arthur. A slower, phased response could have been much more effective. As it is there are now a lot of guns stored away in old pipes and buried for 'safe-keeping'. It would have been better, to start with, simply to make people register their guns without any threat of confiscating them. That would have received considerable support. By now we could have had some really useful information about who has guns, why they have guns and how they are being used. Armed with good information we could have formulated some sensible laws with which to move forward.

Sure, the crims intent on using their guns for crime would not have registered them. They are quite a different problem requiring a different solution. One good thing about crims having guns is that they invariably end up shooting each other.

Ok, I have just had a bit of a trawl through some of the crimne stats. If you want to have a look too, I'll post some links here. Forget the "quotes" that are put up in the papers, have a look at the real source and then try and buiild a case for gun ownership based on crime statistics. Here's the first one, ready?:
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_trends_shootingmar06

OMFG, all firearms offences are DOWN, some up to 22% depending on the type of offence. There are some other reports on that same site, I suggest anyone who is interested to have a look. Clearly gun control is not working, we have to arm the gerneral populace NOW. NOT, LOL.

If you want to compare a similarly populous state in the US, I have picked Indiana, where gun ownership is high, and I have actually lived for 2 years. Surprise surprise, their murder rate is up to 4.5 times higher than ours per 100,000 persons.

Heres a couple of links:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_crime_stats

You can get anything you want here, but just for NSW, which is the most populous state in Australia, or at least a decent indicator.

And here is the Indiana stats:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/incrime.htm

or you could cruise other states in the US generally:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
if you want to pick another state go ahead.

Now I challenge anyone to use these ACTUAL crime statistics (as oppsoed to nutbag blogs and newspaper articles) to build a case for increasing gun ownership for self defence. Sporting arguments need not apply.

Labour 'losing control'

Jan 25 3:03 PM US/Eastern

Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.

Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.

There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.

The figures come a day after two men armed with a replica gun robbed a Home Office worker on his way home after sharing a curry with Home Secretary John Reid. The 29-year-old civil servant was making his way home in Beckenham, Kent, shortly before midnight when he was attacked.

A Met Police spokeswoman said the man's wallet and mobile phone were taken and confirmed that two teenage men remain in custody at a south London police station.

The Home Office report shows that handguns are the most commonly used firearm in robberies, reported in 2,888 cases.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said of the figures: "This shows Labour is losing control of gun crime across the board, whether it be on the street or in innocent people's homes.

"Gun crime is mainly fuelled by gang warfare and drug addiction, which is a consequence of Labour's failing drugs policy. It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country."

Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "Firearm offences have fallen significantly, by 14% in the year up to September 2006, which amounts to 1,642 fewer incidents.

"While there is a small rise in residential firearm robberies, these account for a tiny proportion of recorded offences overall, although we recognise any firearm incident is traumatic for victims." He added: "We have some of the toughest firearm legislation in Europe."

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007

Bugsy,

We don't need statistics to build a case for allowing firearms for self defence.
There exists a natural right to protect our lives and the lives of our families and others.
Because firearms are used in unlawful attacks upon persons then it follows that there exists a right for those so attacked to possess the means of defence.

The use of the appropriate means of defence is recognised by the Courts.
If we defend ourselves in our homes or place of work then the onus of proof is upon the Prosecution to prove that we did not fear for our lives.

Even the Catholic Church spells it out plainly that there exists a right to defend life even to the extent of taking the life of an unlawful attacker.

All of this presupposes the possession of adequate means of defence.

But to use a few statistcs from your sources;

USA, murders 1960 5.1/100,000. 1980, 10.2; 2000, 5.6; 2005, 5.6

High by Australian standards but then we don't have the drug problem that the US has nor do we have a land frontier across which drug and people smuggling is a huge problem, with the attendand drug crime etc.
Comparisons don't really work unless the playing field is level.

A 10% increase after a 20% decrease is not a reason to change gun laws. Statistics are quoted all the time, trends are used inappropriately comparing individual years instead of over longer periods of time.

But as you say, you don't need statistics, but thats because they don't back your argument when they are used correctly. If you don't think that US statistics are comparable to Australia, I agree. Then we can all agree that the pro-gun argument can stop using them now.

Citing the Catholic Church about use of approriate force in taking the life of an unlawful attacker does not help your case at all.

To reiterate, gun crime is NOT increasing. Crime trends are not increasing. There are NO lawless outbreaks of up to 400%. Nothing has changed for the worse. If anything many trends have gotten BETTER. But no, now you need your gun. Actually, I would feel a whole lot safer if you didn't have it. And thats what this is about isn't it, feeling safe?

Bugsy,

I havent used statistics I merely quoted what is being reported in our more responsble papers.
What it is all about is wheather the Gun Buy-Back was a success.

The Catholic Church's teaching is relevant because self-defence is also a moral issue.

It is something to which all animals are entitled, human or otherwise.

If a law were passed tomorrow stating that self-defence was not allowed it would be a morally wrong law and not binding morally.

What is morally indefensible is that anyone should seek t people from having the means with which to defend themselves.

Only recently in Melbourne two young women were brutally murdered, one managed to reach the phone but could not complete the call.
The murderer some days later, in Western Australia (many hundreds of miles away) savagely attacked a man and and inflicted serious head wounds on him.
The man shot him dead.

The fact that the person attacked was a policeman and in your scheme of things (I suppose)would be armed, shouldn't come into it.
Any person in the same position should have been able to be kill the attacker.

If the young woman who managed to reach the phone had had a pistol she would have had enough time to use it.
It takes longer to dial '000' than to squeeze a trigger.
Probably she and her companion would be alive today and a policeman wouldn't have been so savagely injured.

The next time an old woman is found brutally murdered or anyone else for that matter, ask yourself, if you had been present, would you have helped the victim or the murderer.

And has been stated before, there are other ways to defend oneself. The moral arguments for "self-defence" pale when the ownership of guns increases with the insecurity and fear of the populace and innocents die, either from ignorance, as is often the case with accidental child shootings and or from fear. If the imoportation of non-sporting weapons was easier (ie guns designed for "protection" i.e. to kill), the number of stolen weapons increases also, which begins a vicious cycle of increasing weapons ownership.

Your argument relying on isolated cases (as evidenced by the stats, not an epidemic) would have us even more fearful, because of the gun that may be lying in wait next door, and you don't know who has it. It could be someone like that man under stress that shot the real estate secretary in Qld recently. The less items around in the civilian popualtion that are designed to kill, the better. Moral arguments melt under the heat of real life innocent deaths. It is somnething akin to the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" routine.

I am prepared to concede that the gun buyback may have had a less than ideal outcome. But that does not mean it should never have been attempted. The execution and terms of the scheme could have been improved, with hindsight. But it did not result in higher crime. And it certainly not an argument in favour of higher private gun ownership.

Is Mise said>

Your comments regarding people being able to defend themselves are spot on.

We worked on a case years ago where the guy tied up the husband a raped his pregnant wife in front of him and their two year old daughter and six year old son.

Also I think self defence should be taught in all schools along with some fire arm lessons.

Far more strict guideless to owning a firer arm.


I think a lot of people that argue guns should not be allowed are basically scared of guns.
There are lots of men who will say they dont believe in guns because normally its a mans thing and they have no idea how to handle one.

Instead of saying Gee I dont know much about guns and I would be scared to handle one they pretend they are on a higher moral ground.
Its sort of a male muncho thing.

I stress - not All but we found heaps like that at the pistol club who would come in with the groups as guides.

Nearly all the ones that were honest enough to say that who we talked into doing target shots on the rage learned far more than how to handle a fire arm

There confidence grew and you could see they enjoyed the other blokes company. They formed good friendships and enjoyed BBQs with their kids friends parents making new friends.
There were lots of ladies that were terrified at first of even touching a gun.
The one thing everybody had in common however after six months was you could tell they were real proud that if it came ever to a point they had to they could protect their kids and family.
They grew in condidence and we need all to know how to protect ourselfs instead of that poor family who were bashed and rapped in front of their own kids.
Just imagine how that Dad copes with the fact he could not protect his family.
'

Just found this pertinent observation over on The Primer Pocket site.

Quote:
The Telegraph has a story on VP Cheney’s bodyguards being armed. Seems a special addition to NSW gun laws was gazetted in a hurry.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21263379-5001021,00.html

“I don’t have any problem at all with US VP Dick Cheney’s Secret Service
bodyguards being armed. Or John Howard’s, or Morris Iemma’s, or anyone else
who needs protection.

But the law should apply to all. Is that not one of the primary foundations
of the Westminster system?
If Dick’s, John’s, Morris’ and any visiting celebrity’s life is worth
protecting, what about a woman who is being stalked, a business owner whose
shop has been repeatedly held up, someone subjected to death threats? Are
their lives not entitled to protection also?

There are situations when it is entirely valid for a person (with training
in the use of a firearm, and familiar with the legal ramifications of their
use), to have the means to protect their own lives, those of others, or
property from criminal (or terrorist) elements.

That principle has just been acknowledged by 2 tiers of government. However,
if we are all equal before the law, if the life and safety of each of us
matters equally, then the right and the means should be available not only
to Dick, John, and Morris, but in case of genuine reason, to Joe
Businessman, and to Joe and Jane Citizen as well, if they demonstrate that need.” Unquote

Is Mise: "We don't need statistics to build a case for allowing firearms for self defence.
There exists a natural right to protect our lives and the lives of our families and others."

No offence, but that is among the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

So you're saying, it doesn't matter if relaxing gun laws leads to more murders in Australia, just as long as you can have a gun to protect yourself?

What are you so paranoid about protecting yourself from?

Yes, crime happens, but the rates of crime here are far lower than the places where gun restrictions are lax.

You keep hammering the issue of 'rights.' And the right to defend yourself. Of course you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't mean you have the right to a gun. Those are separate issues. You don't have the right to purchase all manner of illegal materials, be they guns, explosives, poisons or child porn.

I am a vocal defender of civil rights, though I recognise that essentially, rights are a set of rules enacted by man to preserve freedoms while maintaining a functioning, happy society.

I dunno about you, but I feel free to express myself how I want, and live a pretty damn free life. Restrictions on guns doesn't ultimately alter my quality of life - if anything it enhances it by knowing there are less guns out there.

Simple fact: the more guns, the more likely someone is to abuse their guns. The more likely people are to get shot.

So the proposition that there exists a natural right to self protection is ludicrous.
OK, I take your point but the Law in Australia agrees with the proposition, so does the Catholic Church and hence the majority of Christians and so have many philosophers. Even that great champion of peaceful protest Mahatma Gandhi agreed with the proposition, he went so far as to say that unless one possessed the power to strike back then passive resistance was meaningless.

I just believe that law abiding citizens have the right to be able to protect themselves.

Personally having a gun or not doesn't worry me. Naturally if I have to protect myself, or mine, from a violent attack I'd prefer to have a gun; often it's presence is enough to diffuse a situation.
But there are other means of defence and I shall always be grateful to the Commonwealth Government for having spent the money to train me to be skilled in many ways of killing if necessary. I am proficient in unarmed combat and with machine guns, rifles, shotguns, sub-machine guns,pistols, grenades and the bayonet
They even trained me to use the bow, the knife and the garrotte for silently getting rid of sentries.
Swordsmanship I paid for myself as I thought that it might be a handy skill, and there were some lovely girls who learned fencing.

OF course the above skills were not imparted to enable the efficient killing of criminals but rather, law abiding fathers and sons who had probably never even thought of doing a criminal act, they just happened to be on the wrong side.

Anyway the Commonwealth and the NSW Governments have just given their imprimatur to the proposition; they gave licence to Dick Cheney's bodyguards. So having firearms for protection must be acceptable, particularly if there is a little political expediency thrown in.

The ludicrous bit was the "statistics don't matter" element of the argument, where it was okay for there to be a higher rate of murder, just so long as we can get the guns to protect ourselves.

From what exactly, I'm still not sure. I can only assume it is the crime rate... which is lower where there are fewer guns.

Hence the argument seeming ludicrous. Not the mantra "I have the right to protect myself." Of course you do. That doesn't necessarily equate to guns.

No doubt you feel safer clutching a gun in battle; perhaps it is justified in a war zone... well, until I'm living in a war zone, I think we're better off without the guns.

This whole discussion strikes me as a bit surreal.

Some people seem to be responding to the idea of gun ownership as though we were trying to give guns out to everyone, or laying rows of them down on the street for anyone to take. Pardon me, but that is not the case. You misrepresent us, then argue against that strawman belief.

There is little rational reason to prohibit issuing licences for self-defense. Those licenses were not a problem before the 'Buyback', and they would not be now. The evidence is that they make little or no difference to overall stats of violence, and have saved many lives. There are many Australians murdered every year; were their lives not worth protecting? Some have even died under the eye of police cameras because the police knew they were in danger. If it was that provably serious why is that innocent person dead?

Note too that the Government prohibits non-lethal means for self-defense such as tasers, tear gas pistols and bulletproof vests. It is evident that in weighing whether to ban a thing, it is assumed that good, ordinary people have not the mental capacity to use them wisely. Is that true? Is it true for electricity, or chainsaws or aircraft? Why would it by true for arms?

Essentially, it is just moral posturing. By being 'against' these things, a person pays nothing, except by taking away from others , and gets an addictive belief in moral superiority as a reward. By creating a hate against these others, the taking is itself richly rewarding to the self-righteous advocate. That is why the media cheerfully print sexual slanders against shooters, denigrate them as uncultured or rednecks or violent or white males or lying to their wives or spouse beaters or alcohol abusers. Truth doesn't matter in that universe; just tar them all for 'the good of the community'.

Moral posturing. Its one of the nastiest human behaviours, but it is so very rewarding.

It's all well and good to dismiss arguments as moral posturing, but there's a bit of posturing on the other end of the argument as well - the salt of the earth type practical know-how sort, who knows that he or she can handle a gun, who is simply holding out against the hysterics of a wild society, determined to prevent them from their birthright.

That about right?... no, that wasn't constructive, but I couldn't help but return serve. The beauty of your argument is that you can just as easily apply it to anyone with any opinion about anything. How delightful.

You claim the anti-gun people concoct figures, while the anti-gun people say the same about the pro-gun lobby. We're probably not going to get anywhere citing these over and over, so I'll just point back and Bugsy's last post, with the grim acknowledgement that you're probably just waiting to find some other reports that suit your view.

I've pretty simply stated the logic behind my position, and I refute your logic that says guns won't harm society.
Put simply, I just don't think they're going to all end up in the hands of responsible people, and I don't see how you can argue against the point that more people will be shot if more guns are out there.

I'm not saying there isn't room for change - there's always room to review screening processes, and as I've said earlier, I don't have an issue with primary producers who require firearms to deal with pests.

I do have an issue with handgun ownership, and self defence as a justification for firearm ownership.

Mace, tasers, the things you mention - they're non fatal. Can you tell me why, for self defence reasons, these items aren't an acceptable replacement for a gun? Once your attacker is incapacitated, isn't that enough?

Why does the method of self defence have to be fatal, unless it is to counter another gun?

Worth a look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiTWwcfhrNI

Quote.
Is Mise: "We don't need statistics to build a case for allowing firearms for self defence.
There exists a natural right to protect our lives and the lives of our families and others."

No offence, but that is among the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.
Unquote.

I see my trouble, I use English, and here was I thinking that 'ludicrous things' applied to the two sentences that you quoted.
My most insincere apologies.

Statistics have absolutely nothing to do with a natural right, and self defence against unlawful attack is a basic natural right, a right enjoyed by all creatures.

The wallaby ,in the clip above, would have been absolutely justified if it had killed the fox.
Bit hard for a little wallaby I'll grant. Had the fox succeeded he would possibly have got more confident and attacked a kangaroo who wouldn't have hesitated in killing. Ask anyone who has lost a good but incautious dog to an angry 'roo.

Think of the fox as a criminal preying on the weak.

Oh man, you get funnier every day Is Mise. I didn't know that wallabies have a natural right to own firearms and would be perfectly justified using them to defend themselves. You learn something new every day.

Combine that with the post describing the way the Australian government trained you to kill people 8 ways from Sunday, castrate feral pigs with your teeth and pick up chicks with swords and I would nominate your posts for the most bizarre and irrelevant this year. You wouldn't win of course, as nobody can beat the religious nutbags for bizarre.
Thanks for a good laugh man.

Bugsy,
The idea is to bowl at the wicket not at the batsman.

Now the topic is the Gun Buyback and if it was/was not a success, so:

Quote:
The Liberals loss in Victoria was the twentieth loss for Coalition parties, in State/Territory elections, since 1996. It is clear that State Coalitions have been “on the nose”, with many believing their decline can be traced back directly to the 1996 anti-gun laws.

When John Howard forced the States to accept his ill-conceived gun bans, he said, “I know many Australians will not agree with these laws, but you can show your contempt at the ballot box.” That was following the Australian Police Ministers Conference in
Canberra on May 10th 1996. At each post-1996 State election, Coalition Governments were voted out. Because Gun Laws are a State responsibility, under the Australian Constitution, voters showed their contempt at State level. The NSW Labor Government even increased its majority, but later retired the Police Minister Paul Whelan, who had been present at the fateful APMC meeting on May 10th, 1996.Efforts are being made, by both Peter Debnam ( NSW Liberal Leader) and Adrian Piccoli, (Nationals firearms spokesman) to come up with a policy statement in support of sports shooting and private ownership of firearms; they both addressed the AGM of Sydney Branch of Sporting Shooters Association along the lines of “…getting rid of Labor’s illogical and unreasonable gun laws…” It is well known how Queensland National Party membership dropped by 30% and funding dropped by 60%, after the 1996 gun laws. A similar result had also occurred in other States which had been held by Liberals. Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce made the observation on ABC Radio that “The Nationals should never have given in on gun laws”. This was further supported during an interview (also on ABC Radio) when Russell Cooper (former Queensland Police Minister) confirmed that “…the Howard gun laws were so unpopular that the Nationals were wiped out…” Unquote.

from a quote on PrimerPocket

Ok, lets have a go at the wicket then shall we?

Politically it could be argued that the gun buyback has been less than popular for the coalition parties, not unexpected given their "traditional" voter base. However, when put into a historical perspective, the issue remained of how to remove firearms that were either unnecessary (ie currently unused) or becoming illegal, ie automatics, handguns etc. Now, has the result been a total failure for most people concerned?

If anything, the most concrete conclusion that can be made from this whole thing is that once firearms are distributed with the population, it is extremely difficult to recall them. That is, if the guns laws are relaxed to point where most people can get a handgun or other weapon for "self-defence" or whatever, and the gun death rate increases, you cannot then say "whoops, my mistake" and take them back. The damage is virtually irrevocable.

One thing any failure of the gun buyback cannot be used to argue for is an increase in the total number of firearms in a civilian population, which it seems is what many are trying to say. Logically, it just doesn't make sense.

In other words the logic goes like this: Measure A didn't work, so lets try the opposite of Measure A. Insanity.

But really, what isn't clear is the extent to which the buyback didn't work. What result has occurred to convince anyone that it didn't work overall? There are no statistics which support this idea, no matter what someone is quoted as saying in the newspaper.

Well let's try these for size.
Don Wedderburn of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics who initially supported the 1996 laws has come to the coclusion that they did not work.

There now exists, as a direct result of these laws, a political party that has one member in the NSW Upper House and which has had passed some significant changes to NSW law.

There is now a 'gun lobby' as a direct result of the Gun Buy Back; something which never really existed in this country prior to 1996.

The gun owners of Australia now are better armed in terms of more accurate and more powerful weapons.
The main thrust of the 1996 laws would appear to have been the reduction in semi-automatic firearms and some repeating shotguns.

This was achieved except that firearms with a high and often higher cyclic rate of fire were not affected. Very many semi-automatic firearms actually have a relatively slow rate of fire compared to repeating firearms both in actual speed of exhausting a magazine and in cyclic rate. So what was the gain?
There are also more pistols in private hands than at the end of WW II,
both in numbers owned by individuasl and on a per capita basis.

One particular firearm with a cyclic rate of at least 700 rounds per mnute is still around, still legal and suffered no reduction in numbers.
The renowned Vickers Medium Machine gun has only a cyclic rate of 250/minute and they were never allowed in civilian hands.

I guess the Governments advisers were a bit slack/dumb/didn't give a hoot,or was their agenda something different?

Now I'm totally mystified, are we talking about the gun laws or gun buyback?

Where can I independently verify these statistics? Especially the ones about gun ownership. I hope they didn't come from some "gun lobby" newsletter. The identity of this 700 round/minute weapon would be helpful also (with a handy reference of you please).

Did Don Wedderburn actually say that the gun laws didn't work or were failing? Or did he say that the laws possibly had "no effect" because gun death rates were falling before the laws were enacted? Which is of course difficult to say one way or another, because in statistician speak this means the trends are not marked by a particular event and so causality is hard to argue. But the fact remains that gun violence rates are down on historical averages. Anyway, a reference for this statement would be good too. Thanks.

The discussion was about the Buy-Back (see initial post) however these things tend to stray and the one is interwoven with the other.

That shooters today have more accurate and more powerful weapons is not easily verifiable from statistics but a visit to any range where sporting arms are used will demonstrate the fact.
Shooters used the buy-back money to upgrade equipment.
Much of the stuff that was sold to the Government was old and cheap.
For example,I sold back two semi-automatic Russian SKS rifles, that I had bought for curiosity/experimental purposes. These were bought for $50 each from the 'Armoury' in Sydney.I was paid $250 each. I also sold two 'Gevarm' semi-automatic .22 rifles for which I had paid $150 each, complete with scopes and mounts, I got $250 each for these as well.I kept the scopes and mounts.
Had I had fore warning of the buy-back I would now be a millionaire.
(To digress; this makes me wonder why there are still clairvoyants plying their trade).
There are anectdotal stories of Victorian fishermen meeting their NZ oppos in the middle of the Tasman and buying 7.62mm SLRs for far less than the price that was being offered by the Buy-Back.

The identity of the 7oo rpm cyclic rate firearm is simply the common double action revolver.I was being deliberately misleading of course, but cyclic rate is the figure always quoted by the media when fooling the public on firearms '...could fire 600 shots per minute...'.

Statistics are what they are, but Don Wedderburn's statements are matters of public record. What is also a matter of record is that the biggest benificiary, in money terms, was the character in the Northern Territory who sold back all sorts of prohibited firearms from a WW II weapons dump.
Just how much of the 600,000 'taken off the streets' were junk we will never know, likewise we will probably never know just how many were re-cycled back into the community but the SMH reports of the court case (in the primary post) say at least 700 in this one case alone.

And so, in other words, there is nothing of substance to your claims. I cannot find any of Don wedderburn's statements indictaing that he no longer supports gun laws. The statements I see indicate that other factors, like the heroin drought, have been more easily attributable to the lowering of rates of certain offences such as armed robbery. The rates of homicide have been lowering for some time, but nothing in the statistics or Don's statements indicate or justify a relaxing of gun laws, or that the buyback had an opposite effect of it's intention. That is always stated by the Shooters Party, but has no substance to back it up.

Likewise, I cannot find any stats on gun ownership, from ww2 on. If they are out there, letting me know where they are would be a start.

If what you have claimed is true, and gun ownership has increased, and you have been able to upgrade your weapons, aren't you happy about this? For you, and the Shooters Party, the buyback would be labelled a success!

The stats on pistol ownership are there for all to see.
I have no idea of the numbers in private ownership but as such ownership was not allowed for target shooting and that there were no pistol clubs in the country prior to the 1956 Olympics and there are now many such clubs and thousands of members then I guess the number of pistols in private hands must number many thousands.
At the time that I gave up pistol shooting, around 1998, I owned three percussion muzzle-loading revolvers, one single shot percussion M/L pistol, one .22rf semi-automatic pistol and two breach loading revolvers. That's seven pistols and many shooters own more.

As Don Wedderburn was widely quoted and hasn't come out and said that he didn't, which could be expected from a person in his position, I'll stand by my what has been said.

The shooters'/gunowners' main objections to the Buy-Back are that it was not needed, was vindictive or ill thought out, wasted resources and money that could have been well spent on other things and continues to waste police resources.

One little example of the lack of thought: a Minor's Permit, which if issued at the minimum age of 12 years must last until 18; that's six years.
Now in this modern day and age most licences that have to be carried, especially if one is on a camping trip and roughing it out in the field, are made of a long wearing, tough ,waterproof plastic.
Not so the Minor's Permit it's an A4 piece of absorbent paper, which can be replaced for a fee.

The latest rankle is that some Americans about whom the Australian Government can know nothing (American policy on it's 'Minders')were given licence to carry concealed firearms in this country when our own citizens can't, there ought to be one law for all.

The trivialities and contradictions just keep coming.

So, the need for a 50c sealable plastic sleeve or a $1 lamination has become a cause to suspect vindictiveness on the part of the licensing authorities.

Don Wedderburn (or is it Weatherburn?) has been quoted as saying a lot of things on a lot of subjects, I just wanted to know which statements you are using, as yet I am in the dark on that.

As to the "unnecessary" cost of the exercise, by your own arguments to date the net beneficiaries of all that money seem to have been responsible shooters, like yourself. You have been able to upgrade outdated weapons at higher than market value, and those weapons have also been removed from circulation. As has been stated by spokespeople from the Shooters Party, only the responsible shooters obey the law and so therefore the responsible shooters would be the majority beneficiaries of the policy. And yet somehow this is a "bad thing" for shooters in general? Where's the victimisation?

Also, if the statistics you have "quoted" on increasing gun ownership are actually true (as yet unverified) and seems to have been caused by the buyback (which has been implied), it seems that becoming a gun owner has generally become attractive, which doesn't seem to fit your argument. Also, it would seem that the Shooters party would benefit greatly from such increasing firearm ownership.

Continued.....

It all just doesn't fit, and the stats don't fit an objective argument. But I can understand a subjective argument for firearm ownership. I suspect that gun owners generally derive a great deal of pleasure out of owning guns. This is borne out by the rate of ownership of various weapons for each individual (eg. yourself, Is Mise). If it was a strictly objective utilitarian exercise, such as "self-defence" there wouldn't be much need to own more than one firearm at a time. And so, shooters like yourself feel "put upon" and victimised once the source of that pleasure is severely restricted. This I can understand, it is a similar situation with smoking. However, the laws are not there for your own personal inconvenience I am certain of that.

As for the situation with Dick's "bodyguards", they are not normal citizens or private contractors, they are Secret Service and are very likely to have had a great deal more training than most of our law enforcement officers. They are also an ally in a time of war and he is the second to the most powerful office on the globe. Comparing him and the U.S. Secret Service to "ordinary citizens" is ridiculous, as they are most certainly a very temporary situation.

What I have not seen yet is an outline of how it could have been handled better, what would have been more effective, or what could be more effective in the future after the lessons have been learned. All I have seen is a load of whinging.

Outline of how it could have been handled better.

The Federal Government and JW (I Hate Guns)Howard could have left the law as it was.
Canada is a glaring example of Registration and it's lack of any tangible benefits. Canada was trumpeted as the way to go by the anti-gun advocates.
They have been remarkably silent since the new Canadian Government has started to roll back the laws and do away with the registration of long arms.

As I said what rankles for most people is not to be trusted by one's own Government. How are we to know that Cheney's bodyguards were well trained? Does America always tell the truth?

However, if I were to buy a grazing property, not a big one just enough to be a primary producer, I could be trusted.

On the number of longarms owners there are no really reliable figures available but there have been many disused rifle ranges brought back into operation since 1996 and the demand is so high that Sport and Rec has decreed that they must be shared by various clubs.
Locally the pistol club has had to share its sacred ground with the Hunting & Target club and an extra 50 metre range has been built.

The shooting complex at Hilltop NSW is well under way and is NSW Govt. funded.
There is to be a new round of grants under the Ministerial Advisory Council on Shooting Clubs (MACOSC);this after a period of a couple of years when funds dried up. Previous to the dry up more than $4-million had been distributed to clubs in NSW. Then there is the opening up of Crown Land etc to hunting. Another positive is that some schools are encouraging target shooting as a sport for their senior pupils.

More and more people are using their Shooter's Licence for identity purposes, they are sometimes refused and asked for a Driver's Licence but when it's pointed out that a Shooter's Licence is much more secure etc they are usually accepted.

Now we are getting somewhere....

So the historical figures on numbers of longarms owners(a pretty serious class of firearms I'm sure) are not reliable, and so you are relying on the memberships of various shooters clubs for figures on ownership. But don't the present gun laws have a clause that says membership of a gun club contitutes a sufficient reason to own a firearm? That would make gun club membership pretty damn attractive to gun owners that were previously not members, and hence not actually counted. So what you are ACTUALLY counting is the number of gun club members that have joined since the new laws were enacted, presumably this is closer to the actual figure of gun ownership these days. But I still don't get where you got the figures for gun ownership during or just after WW2. And I also wonder (if ownership figures are unreliable) where reliable figures on the number of guns in circulation come from?

As far as I can see it, the gun clubs have actually benefitted from the new laws, since their membership has obviously increased because of them. By default, it is virtually required to be a member to own a gun if you are in an urban area. I have no problem with this, as it actually gives us a much better idea of how many legitimate gun owners there are rather than estimates.

As for the anti-American jibe, I don't think I will bother with that as it has been covered ad nauseum on this site. But I will say this, I'm pretty sure it doesn't "rankle" most gun owners, it just rankles those with a barrow to push.

Dear Bugsy,

I'm resisting the temptation to be sarcastic but it follows that if there was no issuance of licences for target shooting and there were no clubs prior to 1956 then the number of pistol shooters today is a vast increase since WW II.
Previous to this licences were only issued for defence. As a member of Sydney Pistol Club in 1959 I had the honour of representing NSW against the ACT. I was a State Representative Pistol Shooter, the distinction wasn't hard to attain as the only club in NSW we shot against the only club in the ACT. Still that's statistics for you ! !

The '50 cents worth of plastic' for storage of, what one presumes would be unlicenced semi-automatic firearms and ammunition, were in fact Government surplus EPIRB canisters; resistant to salt water etc etc. When these ran out 6 inch diametre poly pipe became the substitute of choice.

Sure the shooting sports have done well out of the various Governments attempting to buy back votes, but that's not the point.

The point is that so many felt betrayed by their Governments.

Its good to talk about your feelings more, let it all out. But what we see is that all of this is based on your (and many others I'm sure) feelings of betrayal.

Compare these two statements:

“When NSW was awash with guns, comparitively, our crime rate, as far as holdups went was far less. Home invasions weren't heard of.
During WW II when there were far more guns than cars the crime rate was low.”

“it follows that if there was no issuance of licences for target shooting and there were no clubs prior to 1956 then the number of pistol shooters today is a vast increase since WW II.”

Aren’t these statements contradictory? It seems to me that you have pulled the figures for gun ownership around WW II from somewhere approximating your rear end.

The 50 cents worth of plastic was of course for the minors licence, but one wonders how you could also laminate a rifle?.

Feeling betrayed is a natural reaction, and a subjective one. All the real arguments you have are subjective, as evidenced by your "moral imperative" reasoning. Statistics and figures are not your friend, especially if you just make them up.

As for your outline of how to handle it better: do nothing? Thats a good one.

Bugsy,

Play the game , old chap,we don't bowl bodyline around here.

NSW was awash with guns during WW II, nations at war usually are. There were guns everywhere, the armed forces had them as well as civilians still having their shotguns and rabbit rifles (semi-automatics included), civilians had mostly handed in their military rifles and military pistols. Civilian target rifles were our main source, at the time, of snipers' rifles.
Criminals fearing armed people didn't go in for holdups and home invasions, there was a good chance of getting shot.

The ref. to pistol clubs is to a time commencing 11 years after the war, so I don't see any contradiction.
I assume that you have come to grips with the fact that as there was only one pistol club in NSW in the 1950s and they are now all over the state there are now more pistol shooters and hence more pistols than there were in the past. I miscounted my old licences I had eight pistols. There is nothing unusual in having numerous pistols, there are a number of disciplines in which one may compete. Example,if one aspires to reaching Olympic standard in rapid fire, which requires a modern pistol, then the replica flintlock duelling pistol which one uses in historical events is unsuitable.

The minor's permit is, as I said, merely a minor illustration (no pun intended). There should be no need for the recipient to need to protect it, at the very least if it falls to pieces it ought to be replaced free of charge.

'...but one wonders how you could also laminate a rifle.".
The metal work is a bit difficult and the Americans had trouble during WW I with laminations in some rifle barrels. Laminated rifle woodwork has been in use for some 70 years (refined sarcasm based on the play on words that English allows us).

Mate, I am disputing the figures, what you do with yourself is not the issue here, so if you want to keep putting your private life out there, I'll keep aiming at it.

I take it that since the number of handguns has massively increased since the first gun clubs were established then we should also see a corresponding drop in crime, however that has never been the case. I have also previously noted that the sector of society that is most likely to be involved in violent crimes are mostly enlisted in the armed forces in major conflicts. This holds true for most the the major wars, violent crime rates fall in every country involved. This of course is totally unrelated to the number of firearms about and so, I don't see how you could possibly make the causal link that you have.

As I keep saying, your argument is totally subjective, because as soon as you analyse the situation objectively, you immediately notice that every indicator has improved for everybody concerned. The gun clubs have increased membership, most of the money went into the pockets of responsible gun owners, which has allowed old weapons to be upgraded, we have more reliable figures on how many guns there are and rates of gun ownership and more scrutiny to ensure better training of responsible gun owners and to top it all off the crime rates have fallen! It's a win for everyone, and yet some people just felt pissed off and never got over it. I won't name names.

Thats right Bugsy we didn't get over it. I hadn't been a shooter for seven years when 1996 happened, had no guns of my own to lose. I do now. The vicious moralising at the time was so offensive I came back to the sport in anger at the moralising contempt of 'public opinion'.

There is as you say some contradiction in standard shooter positions. The reason is probably that actual causes and assuptions are really independent of each other, and outcomes are therefore independent of assumptions.

For instance, owning guns for self defense was dealing with extremely rare events before so outcomes would not be statistically much different. Doesn't mean it isn't rational for instance when a widow living miles from police in a community with some violent substance abusers decides to keep a gun. Your principle of no self-defence guns could cost this example - my mother - her life, if the worst happened, as indications recently have pointed to serious personal danger.

Is Mise's generalities are mostly correct, but we are not building cases coherently in this thread.

The idea that we benefited from buybacks in terms of loads of extra money to upgrade firearms with is laughable. If I came into your home backed by uniformed police, burned your wedding photos in front of your wife and showed your children photos of you in ambiguous positions with other people's spouses, then gave you money slightly above the original cost of the wedding photes and left... would you be better off? If my actions were loudly cheered by the media, the Government and your children's teachers, would you be better off?

I benefited by learning a lot about human nature. For instance, 'reactance'. You take my freedom, I hate that restriction and undermine it way past the point of rational benefit. I cheer those who subvert the laws non-violently, and view my natural political party as betrayers.

Ho Hum.
The Great Mantra has been more guns equals more crime whereas we say more guns equals less crime.
All those thousands of guns in trained hands and the crime rate has been falling.
I think that that is the point.

If the Firearms Acts were fair and just then service station attendants would be allowed to wear 'bullet proof vests' but possession of such a vest is a criminal offence, but the Prime Minister wore one when addressing a meeting of shooters. Double standard?
Where is Work Cover when one needs them?

Actually, no the mantra isn't more guns = more crime. The mantra is, more guns = current crime. With guns. The mantra really is, more people will get shot.

Is Mise, if you can honestly tell me (and back it up) that relaxing gun laws will result in fewer people being shot then perhaps I'll agree with you.

Though I think it's comparable to arguing that more rain will make things more dry.

Is Mise

while I agree with most of your views, I can't find a way to enable a double action revolver to perform at 700 rpm. That's over 11 shots per second. Yesterday, at the range, I tried out my Smith and Wesson 686 and 627 and was nowhere near that. Even semi-auto fire from my Para P38 fell short.
The best that I have seen was the fast shooter video that someone sent to me, where an American shooter fired eight shots in one second. If this site allowed it, I could have attached the video. This was obviously due to a trigger job as a standard DA revolver would never have allowed it.
Come on the belt-fed revolver!

JSP1488,

The claimed figure by/for Ed McGivern in 1935,or so, was 5 shots in 2/5ths of a second, this comes to 750 rpm.
The actual cyclic rate is much higher as it is taken when the trigger is mechanically actuated, say with a hand-winder or an electric motor.
The cyclic rate then goes up until the mainspring cannot keep up and the revolver missfires.

Most semi-auto pistols can't get any where near McGivern's speed. There is some doubt about the electric timers accuraccy at the time, but if it increased his figure by 100%(not likely to have been that far out!) he still did 375 rpm.
Cyclic rates, which are what the media love to quote, are misleading as a double barreled shot gun has a cyclic rate governed only by the slight dwell,say a 1/000th of a second, between shots when both triggers are pulled together.
Ed used a standard S&W as I remember.

Have been having a look at a few statistics and offer the following for comment. These figures are for 2004-2005 and are all per 100,000 of population.

Washington D.C: 35.4 murders; 30.2 rapes; 672.1 robberies; 721.3 assaults.

Virginia: 6.1 murders; 22.7 rapes; 99.2 robberies; 154.8 assaults.

Maine: 1.4 murders; 24.7 rapes; 24.4 robberies; 61.7 assaults.

Vermont: 1.3 murders; 23.3 rapes; 11.7 robberies; 83.5 assaults

Australia: 1.3 murders; 90 sexual assault; 82.5 robberies; 1541 assaults.

Washington D.C. has the toughest Gun Laws in the USA,there is virtually no way that the ordinary citizen can have a firearm for self protection (same as Australia). Washington D.C. ranks highest for murder in the USA.

Virginia and Maine allow carrying of a pistol for self defence and Vermont doesn't have any firearms laws at all, apparently, apart from restrictions on where they may be discharged.

Australia having Uniform National Gun Laws (or so we are told) it can fairly be compared with other areas of uniform law.

Virginia borders on D.C.and has a higher crime rate than the other two states cited, this may or may not be a spill over from its much more violent neighbour. Maine and Vermont are well insulated from Washington D.C.

The rape figures are misleading as it appears that different criteria are used in Australia, as are the assault figures as the American figures are for 'Agrivated Assault' which does not include common assault.

Links. USA:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Aust:http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/

You should have stuck to the emotional arguments Is Mise. Are you seriously comparing a U.S. District of 177 square kilometres of high density city with Australia or even other US states? And that the gun laws in neighbouring states (we are after all talking about the USA) are comparatively unrestricted, which of course makes the whole thing a joke. Especially when they enacted gun laws precisely because they were having problems with guns and crime rates. And you obviously have not visited "D.C." either or you would realise this.

But I couldn't help but notice that in the later posts, guns were described on a par to wedding photos, whereas in earlier posts, guns were descibed as tools, on a par with chainsaws etc...

Which is it, chainsaws or wedding photos?

I think we are getting closer to the truth of it really. About the emotional attachment many shooters have with their weapons, and how much of that is involved with this malarky.

But that is it. DC enacted their tough gun laws and they still have an extraordinary high crime rate.
Their murder rate is among the highest in the world.
Their laws give the lie to 'more guns equals more crime'. It would seem that in the USA more guns equals less crime, else why does Vermont with virtually no gun laws have such a low crime rate?
Any one in that state, citizen or not, can carry a pistol, either concealed or openly.

Emotional arguments?
Yes, I allow my emotions to enter my arguments. I tend to get a bit emotional, as in sorrowful, when someone is murdered in a home invasion and they were denied the means of self-defence. It also makes me a bit angry.
At least in NSW if one has to defend one's self at home or in the workplace the onus of proof is on the Prosecution to prove that one was not in fear of one's life at the time, a virtual impossibility.
This law was an initative of the Shooters' Party in the Upper House and of Richard Torbay (New England) in the Lower. The Act was later extended to the workplace.

I can't believe you're still going toe to toe on this one :-) There's certainly a lot of emotion surrounding this issue.
I was never much into shooting, although, as all kids from a farming community did, I spent many cold hours on the back of a "spotlight shooting vehicle" holding the beam and taking the odd shot often, I confess, deliberately mis-aimed to protect the poor furry bunny, but John Howard's vicious firmarm laws really enraged me at the time, but for a different reason perhaps.
In my very young days, dad would often take the .22 or old single barrel shotgun out and have a crack at a rabbit, then teach me how to use a firearm properly, how to hold it when stalking prey, etc. I'd then be allowed to have a shot at a can or log, so became reasonably proficient with handling a firearm and had great respect for them from a safety angle. When my old dad died in '78, about the only thing he left me of any great value was those treasured memories from our time together. Dad was quite old when I came into the world and becoming increasingly crippled by arthritis, so out time together was precious. Part of those memories was our little shooting outings and yes, the little semi-auto rifle and shotgun was left to me to look after.
Not all that long afterwards, John Cain introduced registration of firearms "just so as we know where all the guns are" he told angry shooters. Well, that can't hurt I thought and dutifully registered my father's firearms. What a tragic mistake!
I actually went home and cried after handing in my father's little semi-auto during the gun buy back. The damn thing didn't even work at that stage. I sat in the kitchen all alone and stared at the cheque like some sort of forced Judus and cried as I thought of that powerful link to my father being crushed and destroyed

Part 2
Eventually, in the way it was designed, minimal income and a yearly $250 bill to renew my shooting licence took it's toll. I handed in the H&R single barrel shotgun and my licence. Now, I'm one of those people that a poster wrote about. I live in a rural remote area where hoons in hotted up cars come to play in the dirt and I'm all alone. Sometimes, I'll even admit to being a little scared since I now have no means of defending myself at all.
Don't know what relevance this post puts on the issue, but even since John Howard introduced the firearms legislation, I've hated the man with a passion and will never again vote for the Liberals whilst this little idiot is in power and yet, I heard that following the Port Arthur massacre, the Labor Party wanted to introduce even more draconian laws in relation to firearm ownership. Not wonder my faith in Australian politicians has been shattered.

Actually, the lie is "more guns = less crime". The District of Columbia enacted those gun laws precisely because of spiralling crime rates BEFORE the gun restrictions.Enacting gun laws like those found in Washington DC do not work when right next door you have states like Virginia, with weak gun laws. But I think you will find that gun ownership in those areas of DC far exceeds the intent of the laws.

Anyway, since the actual causes of crime are quite different in different parts of the world. But here's a much broader study that doesn't use a small high density area with a major drug problem as it's reference point.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364

Also, how do you explain the levels of crime severely dropping in New York City, when they have some of the tougher gun laws around. That blows holes in your argument doesn't it? The more guns= less crime equation doesn't stack up, but there are more homicides in areas of higher gun ownership (see above link). Thats a fact Jack.

WOW! Bugsy, that sure is a great site.
About the only things they didn't factor in were rainfall, the price of petrol and JWH's consumption of carrots.(more on this later, my spies are still digging on the site's creditability)

Meanwhile back in the real world.

Quote
'Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban

Friday, March 09, 2007

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.'
unquote

__________________

That site, Bugsy, says fairly early that it doesn't establish causation. This opens the door to lots of questions: Why would genuine scientists design a study to not establish causation? Establishing relationships and causation with a high degree of certainty is the whole reason for science. Why did they waste money on a study that didn't answer the question? Did they do the study to decide whether to do a deeper study that does answer the question?

Here's a scholarly article that refutes much of what is presented by Miller, Azrael and Hemenway:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/01/...-hemenway.html

A couple of highlights. They excluded Washington D.C. from their statistics. Why? Perhaps because D.C. has one of the lowest rates of firearm ownership in the US and the highest homicide rate. This skews the results they wanted to get, so they didn't use them.

They use other crime rates to explain the murder rate.

They used data from different years to explain what happened in other years. For example - they correlate the 2000 unemployment rate with the homicide rate, 2001 to 2003

Quote from Lott:
The bottom line is that their results comes from two factors: the exclusion of DC and the use of other crime rates to explain the murder rate. Changing these two factors causes their result to go from positive and significant to negative and significant. I also decided to run these regressions on the robbery rate and doing so produced a statistically significant negative effect whether or not DC was excluded. Using arrest rate data, not shown, also caused the results to be more significantly negative. If I had the necessary panel data handy, my strong presumption is that would also reverse with their result whether or not DC was included.

It is problematic to include the other crime rates in these regressions, particularly since they must believe that guns cause robbery as well as homicide. The results below indicate that more guns mean fewer robberies (again this is using their flawed set up, though I believe that this would continue to be observed with panel data).
Unquote.

Thought I might throw in a bit more.

By 20/05 Washington DC had lost 214,435 residents, almost a third of its 1960 population. Now, we know that the murder rate is the highest in the USA but that can't account for the massive drop, death by natural causes would be a factor but the main factor seems to have been people voting with their feet; "just gettin' th' hell outa there!"

The law banning pistols for self defence was passed in 1976.
The homicide rate for the 16 years prior to the ban was 24.125 per 100,000.
The rate for the 16 years after the ban was 43.456 per 100,000.

Let's just say a 19% increase. Success by any measure?

But that ban is now history and is there anyone happy about it?

'My Fox' based in DC has been running a poll on the Court decision and as at 1615 hrs EDST (Aust.) Sunday 11th March 20/07 it was: 91.80% in favour and only 8.20% against.
The Mayor of Washington DC is running around impersonating Chicken Little and wailing that the world as Washingtonians know it will end.

His citizens fervently hope that it will.

Now could we possibly get back to the original question?

Well, actually if you want to post a blog site of a pro-gun enthuiast, who has written a book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime", which you have obviously read, as you keep repeating it, then fine. If that linked actually worked I might have read it too, so I had to resort to finding more about Lott and his works, and I guess his "creditability".

So allow me to present a blog site which has a critique on his analysis:

http://timlambert.org/guns/lott/

Somehow Washington DC is at the centre of some big mess that proves it for you. But can the question be answered, why is the effect of not valid if Washington DC is excluded? Apparently the statistical power of DC is enough to counteract any generalisation known. What a weird city.

Noone has ever claimed that the Miller et al. study established causation, in fact I would be very wary of many statistical studies that do. But it sure shows a correlation, whether higher crime leads to higher gun ownership, or vice versa cannot be established. But one thing that can be established by this effect is that the "more guns, less crime" mantra is FALSE. That is patently clear.

For the record, books are not peer reviewed, they are only reviewed after publication in public forums. However the American Journal of Public Health, which published the Miller et al. paper IS a highly respected peer reviewed journal. So much for "creditability".

As for the original question, you asked for thoughts. I am giving them to you.

Bugsy,

Thou scrapest the bottom of the barrel when you quote Lambert, still I suppose that you can't get lower.

The study that you confidently put forward was flawed. They were discussing gun crime in America so they left out the place with the most stringent laws and the most crime simply because it upset their case.
You stated that the laws in DC were in answer to the rising crime rate
but for the 30 years that they had the law the murder rate continued to exceed the rate that they had when the law was introduced.

I wonder why the population of Washington DC has declined by a third when the populations of all the surrounding states, states which allow personal protection, have risen?

John Howard ought to ask his mate George why the American people believe in the right to have the means of self defence, and ask himself why he denies the same rights to the citizens of his own country.

Just answer one question honestly.
Would you stand by and watch a fellow citizen be murdered or would you extend to them the means of saving their life?

That's what the great Gun Buy-back was about, disarming the citizens and leaving the weak and the helpless at the mercy of criminals.

Where are the Government's figures for the number of firearms handed in by criminals?
The only figures that they can give are for the law abiding.

So we're back to the moral imperative argument, you're on a real winner with that one....

As stated previously using places like D.C. as a test case is not a good comparison especially since it's 177 square kilometres, surrounded by states with lax gun laws. The laws there are certainly not adequate to succeed in such an environment.

But where does that leave Australia? Since the introduction of the laws: No sprialling crime rates, no mass slayings. In fact there has been an overall improvement in policing resulting in a heroin drought that has lower crime rates across the board. Which gives the TOTAL LIE to the idea that less guns equals more crime.

As for saving the lives of the weak, what is intended is saving the lives of weak and strong alike, across the board. How effective do you think a pistol owned by an 80 year old grandma is anyways? Just point and shoot gran, whoops sorry Mr Postman. But I'm sure Estelle Getty could do better I'm sure.

The way your question is written is quite silly also, I will explain. So, hypothetically I am standing in someones kitchen or something watching a fellow citizen getting stabbed (presumably not shot eh?) and I throw them a gun, how would that work? What about standing on the street, instead of calling the police (the correct response), I yell out here take my 700 rpm double action revolver, that'll save ya!? It's nonsense mate, the best way to prevent crime is removing criminals by better policing. Not by arming everyone who wants a weapon.

There is no evidence to say the buyback has been a failure, except only in the minds of people who didn't like it in the first place. And if you want to talk about scraping barrels, stop quoting blogsites with an axe to grind and stupid records from the 1930s (that are highly dubious to begin with).

And we begin again. You can take it up with the next chump that will bother talking to you about it.

I do find it amusing that this one example, Washington DC is held up as a shining example for the gun enthusiasts.

It's one city. It's also surrounded by states with lax gun laws. It really isn't that great an example.

Perhaps if it wasn't in such a stark contrast to all the other cities, and basic logic.

I note you still haven't been able to tell me that more guns will equal less people being shot. There's your basic logic.

Bugsy said: "It's nonsense mate, the best way to prevent crime is removing criminals by better policing. Not by arming everyone who wants a weapon."

You are right about removing criminals! So why haven't the police and pollies saved everyone by removing criminals?

Is it true that Is Mise wants to 'arm everyone who wants a weapon'? Only in the fevered dreams of your rhetoric.

He seems to be arguing that self-defense is both a valid reason to own a firearm, and that there is no evidence that it does harm for legitimate people to legally own firearms for self-defense. The balance of research indicates that he is right, in those limited terms. As far as I can see the rest is your projected rhetoric.

The cause of massacres was not gun laws being loose or tight, but irresponsible sensationalism by the media triggering deviants to imitate other killers. That included Australian news programs teaching people how to get guns illegally and use them to get peverse glory. See http://www.class.org.au/ideas_kill.htm .

TRTL says:"Washington DC is held up as a shining example for the gun enthusiasts."

What an exaggeration.

For the record, more Americans kill each other in 'murders without guns' than ALL murders in the UK, Canada and Australia, so the claim that guns are the cause is disproven.

TRTL said: "I note you still haven't been able to tell me that more guns will equal less people being shot. There's your basic logic. "

The claim was made by John Lott in an extended study called 'More Guns, Less Crime' that more LEGAL, TRAINED citizens armed for self defense carry result in a measurable drop in violence. According to critics, the selection of data was over-tight to prove that effect. What Lott's focus obscured is that there was no measurable increase in violence, under extremely wide conditions. The opponents of legitmate gun ownership were shown to be hyperventilating, and wrong.

The other point is that guns, like other consumer durable goods, have hugely multiplied in the US since the peak in crack murders in 1991. Yet there has been a consistent fall in violence over that period as guns have increased in responsible hands by about 30-50 million. DO NOT MISREPRESENT THIS ; the rise in guns is not the CAUSE of the fall in violence but a strong correlation. Your misrepresentation of Is Mises's claim is looking weak, though.

Similarly under the Buyback there was no change in decline of violence. They said it would make Australia safer, AND the claim that it would prevent massacres was disavowed by both Dr Adam Graycar (AIC) and by John Howard. Yet now people are claiming success on grounds they disavowed previously. Why were they wrong before if they are right now?

I suggest that the laws are operating under different mechanisms than are implicitly assumed. The effect of media treatment in propagating these crimes was more important than the gun laws which mostly affect ordinary people.

TRTL,
Like any reasonably good teacher I gave you the information and left you to discover, for yourself, the answers.
Seems that I'll have to tell you(and others).

If more guns meant more crime then the States of Virginia and Maryland which border on Washington DC would have more crime than it does simply because they HAVE MORE GUNS.

Now do you understand?

For anyone who doesn't understand 'causation' and its place in the scheme of things.

'causation
One entry found.

causation

Main Entry: cau·sa·tion
Pronunciation: \kȯ-ˈzā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1615
1 a: the act or process of causing b: the act or agency which produces an effect'

Quote:
Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide. unquote.

If you cant find causation...it means that all that study is subjective opinions....

Maybe the 'disproportionately large number' were criminals shot by the law abiding in justifiable self defence.

How remiss of me. I forgot all about Switzerland where the males who are subject to military service have Fully Automatic Assault Rifles at home, beside their hunting and target rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Here's a link to a BBC article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

Tut tut, all those millions of guns and so little crime!

Will wonders never cease?

Bugsy, I suppose this makes me that chump. Perhaps I should think twice next time.

Switzerland has a 'citizen's army.' Basically, these people are the soldiers of switzerland and have been trained as such.

The correlation here, would be to simply allow soldiers to take their assault rifles home, instead of relaxing gun laws for the general populace. Are you advocating that?

In regard to Washington, things aren't that simple. You're using the simplistic causation argument. Answer me this, does Virginia or Maryland have the country's capital? Do either of them have such a large population centre? What of the disparity in socio-economic status in Washington. There we have some of the most powerful people in the country, as well as some of the poorest.
Yes there is crime and conflict - and despite the restrictions on gun ownership, it's easy to get them from the neighbouring states.

Chrisper - you have Lott's study, I have Ehrlich. We can throw cherry picked studies at each other all day, though I note that Lott's conclusions were pretty damn ambiguous.

Simplistic? You betcha!

"more guns = more crime" so surely "less guns = less crime"

Therefore the States/cities/places/whatever that have the most guns should have the most crime and those with the least guns should have the least crime.

Switzerland has more of the one and less of the other, so one can only ask "Why is it so?".

If we have a look ot the world figures for violent crime I believe that Australia has more than the USA.
Must look it up.

Actually Is Mise, I've been arguing that more guns just makes the current crimes much worse, and increases the potential somebody will wind up shot. That is different to more guns = more crime.

OK you're saying more guns = more serious crime/more people shot/wounded/murdered.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't explain why those Cities where there are more guns than Washington DC have a lower murder rate and a lower overall crime rate.

A few nights ago an elderly shop keeper in Newcastle NSW was savagely beaten to death by a group of hoons, for a few dollars.
Now if he had had a pistol he may have:

(a) Frightened them off.
(b) Shot one or more of them.
or as someone will race to point out
(c) Been shot with his own gun (which possibly would have been less prolonged and painful).

Now why isn't a person in his position allowed to have the means of self protection? If it is not the job of the police to protect the people then whose job is it?

I remember back in the 1970s the town of Sofala (30 miles or so from Bathurst NSW, and the nearest police) was invaded by a bikie gang who decided to terrorise the town. The local publican along with his shotgun resolved the problem.

But Is Mise, that man had to die because ordinary people prefer it.

They deny he or a neighbour might succeed in deterring the attack, because they hate their imaginary 'gun nuts' so much that deaths of others cannot enter their smug reality.

ChrisPer,
What you're implying is that the Australian people don't care if the defenceless and old are murdered just so long as the murders don't upset their cosy little world.
Gee, I wonder how some of these people, who'd deny an old man some form of protection, would react if their own home or small shop was invaded.
Pretty cowardly denying protection to the old folks is it not?
But those that do can take comfort in that such actions are not Un-Australian.
In fact they're very Australian because even our Prime Minister subscribes to that line of thinking. He hates guns and doesn't believe that self defence is a sufficent reason to own a firearm.
Some people may believe that because of these beliefs that he wouldn't allow guns anywhere near him, but what do his bodyguards carry?
This would be sheer hypocracy if it were not for the fact that the Prime Minister is far more important than old shopkeepers (at least in his own mind).

The inference that the Great Gun Buy-Back was not a success could be drawn from the NSW Nationals policy statements in the run-up to Saturday's voting.
Apart from promising reforms and some relief from Labor's harsh gun laws, (funny, I thought that the Gun Laws were Liberal Party Laws that were forced on the States by unprecedented blackmail by the Federal Liberal Govt) they have this to say:

"Labor's firearms laws have not stopped crimes being committed with firearms, in the last two years robbery with a firearm [and therefore potential murder] in innner Western Sydney is up by 32.1% and in Inner Sydney is up by 110.9%"

Ref. NSW Recorded Crime Statistics. June Qtr. 2006.

There you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth.
The same horse that will come second in the Futility Stakes at the NSW Meeting on Saturday next.

You never cease to amuse. You would of course believe what they say about the statistics and yet not believe what they say about whose fault it is. Only because one statement fits what you already believe and the other doesn't. Thats objective, NOT.

Why don't you take a look at the source?:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_2006qrt3

Ok, it's the September Quarter, not June, but you can still get the idea.

Inner Sydney, robbery with firearms: up 50% total recorded cases in increased by 35 from 70 in 2005, for a TOTAL in the 12 mnths ending Spt. 2006 of 105 cases.

Inner Western Sydney: up by 70% from 24 cases in 2005 to 41 cases in 2006.

In TOTAL the number of cases has increased by 51 incidents in those 2 regions. If you look at NSW in total, crime is DOWN, across the board. It's a goddamn crimewave. Run for the hills! Arm every responsible citizen! 51 robberies with a firearm! Just out of interest, how many criminals do you think it takes to do 51 robberies in a year?

But I guess that the NSW coalition doesn't go in for cynical vote grabbing from rural areas, they are just concerned with the welfare of the poor crime ridden residents of inner Sydney.

Bugsy, I really wonder what point you are trying to make. I think (I might be wrong) that Is Mise is just making a case that self defense wiht a firearm is a legitimate use for one, and therefore it should be a reason to issue a licence.

You seem to imply that he is a complete idiot and that it doesn't matter becauses there aren't enough crimes to call it a crime wave. Is that right?

If so, I don't think whether there is or is not a high level of these crimes ON AVERAGE is very relevant. Risk factors apply to life situation for individuals. One homicidal ex-husband is a terrifyingly high risk factor for his ex-wife, the kids, her lawyer and the neighbour that dobbed him to the cops. On average that is a handful of lives that don't count. To the people involved it is life or death.

And just who is more likely to own or want to use a firearm? A "homicidal" ex-husband or his ex-wife, children, lawyer or neighbours?

And which one of these people is more likely to actually use one?

To paraphrase Is Mise, if you see a fellow citizen who is threatening another, would you give them the means to carry through with that threat? Or would you attempt to remove those means?

Dear Bugsy,

In my last post I was being just a trifle sarcastic; you know taking a poke at the Nationals who are now blaming the State Labour Party for the woes inflicted upon us by John "I now wear a Leather Jacket" Howard* and the Federal Coalition. Now listen carefully, Bugsy, the Coalition consists of the Liberals and the Nationals.
So the Nationals are laying the blame on Labor for the very laws that they brought in.
Don't you see the irony in that?

* "Just like my mate George W.".

Oh sure, it's ironic alright. It's even doubly so when you're attacking people who happen to agree with you. I love it!

Bugsy,
Taking a gentle poke at someone is not an attack, in fact, in the appropriate circumstances it can be quite pleasant.

There has been one positive from the GGBB, shooters now have a positive means of identification, their Firearms Licence, which being issued by the Commissioner of Police has much more standing and authority that a Driver's Licence. It shows that they are a person in whom the Commissioner and the Government have trust.

I use mine whenever I need to do so. Once when I needed to show a policeman my drivers' licence and I couldn't find it he accepted my shoters licence as positive proof of identity. His words were "That'll do me, Sir.". It is, of course, linked to the drivers licence via the police computer, but he didn't bother.

On the few occassions when it was initially refused, such as once to collect registered mail, I simply gave the option of recognising it as valid ID or explaining to the Commissioner why they would not accept a photo card issued under his authority, they accepted.

Having a Firearms License shows that one is a responsible person, held in due esteem by both Government and Police and that one can be trusted in ways that the ordinary members of society are not.
It even works overseas, especially in countries that have repressive firearms laws.

So you weren't really trying to actually make a point with that quote, you were just pleasantly poking the Coalition? Nice one.

Ah! Bugsy, I don't know what we're going to do with you; I've read some of your posts on other subjects so you're not really as thick as you make out. Are you trying to lead us all into a false sense of security before you unleash a reply of devestating accuraccy and logic?

In the meantime think on this, the Government brought in Aprehended Violence Orders (AVOs) which are issued to protect those who seek them from a person(s) whom it is thought may do them harm.
Any firearms or other weapons that the person named in the AVO possesses are confiscated because the Government is aprehensive that the named person may attempt to kill the person seeking protection.

Is it not a fair qestion to ask why the potential victim is not allowed to have a firearm for protection, especially when the Government is so apprehensive of violence to them?
They ought at least be given 24/7 police protection, after all they are perceived to be at risk of death.

Actually I don’t think that giving a battered wife the means to kill her husband is the best solution or even the most morally defensible one, no matter what you think the Catholic Church says about it.

I think now may be a good time to restate the case on gun crime, for the sake of clarity. The equation I am arguing for is not less guns=less crime, more guns=more crime, or even against less guns=more crime or more guns=less crime. In fact each of these posits assert a either a direct or inverse relationship with only 2 variables. This is actually a bit silly as we all know the relationship is a bit more complex than this, especially since it removes criminals from the relationship.

I would like to present a simple equation that I think is closer to reality:

Gun crime= criminals X guns.

Simple enough, but it does help explain seemingly anomalous examples like Switzerland (many guns, low crime), Japan (few guns, low crime), Washington, (many guns, harsh gun laws, high crime) etc.

It should be increasing obvious by now that if you reduce one of the variables on the right hand side of the equation, you can reduce the one on the left (gun crime). Notice I am not talking about crime generally, but it stands to reason that if you reduce the number of criminals, then you would reduce the amount of crime generally and so that relationship is actually independent of gun availability.

The question should really be asked, what are the factors that countries like Switzerland and Japan have in common that produce citizens with less criminal behaviour? It’s likely to be cultural rather than legal. Are they considered diverse multicultural countries or do they have a strong national identity and history that embodies values like duty and responsibility or individualism? Are they rich or poor countries? Do they have high education standards?

cont'd....

Now lets look at Washington, with a high crime rate, how is it similar or different to these other countries? Recently released news that it has the worst literacy rate in the USA (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183792/more_than_onethird_of_washington_dc.html) suggests why the crime rate may be high, and gun availability is actually still quite high also by virtue of being quite accessible to states with lax firearms laws, no matter what the city’s own laws have to say about it.

Now, in regions like Washington, would it be desirable to increase or decrease gun availability, considering that increasing that variable will likely increase the ‘Gun crime’ variable as more criminals have access to those weapons as well?

For Australia though, since our crime rates are moderate to low, it makes sense to keep gun availability reasonably low, or at least in the hands of trained shooters or people with legitimate reasons to own them. The current laws allow for that and attempt to ensure that these firearms are registered and in the hands of people with memberships to legitimate organizations that provide training and support for those gun owners. I have absolutely no problem with this. However I do believe that ‘self defence’ is not a legitimate reason for firearm ownership because it is too open for abuse (ie nearly anyone could get one) and would probably not be easy to legislate that owners are required to be a part of proper clubs and get the required training etc. Severely restricting the sales of automatic assault weapons and concealable handguns in a country like Australia I believe would help to reduce the amount of gun crime and severity of the incidents when it happens, but maybe not overall crime. Because Australia is not like Switzerland and probably never will be. Successful or not, the gun buyback attempted to do this, and I think was worth a try. But for overall crime we need to reduce the number of criminals and so the best strategy would be to address both issues (ie criminals & guns) simultaneously. Anything else would be just pissing in the wind.

And just an addendum...

To be very clear on where I stand, I subscribe to a Machiavellian principle in that if you treat people as fundamentally wicked and make your laws and plan accordingly, then you will never be disappointed. Ironically he got into some trouble with the Catholic Church, which thought that people are fundamentally good and should be treated as such (at least officially).

I notice in many of your posts, Is Mise, that you want gun owners to be treated as fundamentally good and responsible, however not all gun owners are like you. I wish they were.

was right Bugsy, I knew you'd come good with a reasoned post.

It's not what I think the Catholic Church says it's what the Church says is binding on all Catholics, it's right there in their Catechism for all to read.

Giving a battered wife the means of defending herself from her husband if he again attacks her, after having been deemed a threat to her life by the Law is not only morally defensible it is the only moral position to take.

Any other stance, including police protection can fail.
When crisis point is reached only she can defend herself and those who would deny her the means are guilty of contributing to her fate. Simple as that.

What I said about DC goes with your equation,
if
<gun crime = criminals with guns>
then
<low gun crime = the law-abiding with guns>

The gun laws of the states surrounding DC allow their citizens to defend themselves, as criminals don't like armed victims their crime rates are lower than DC.

What I wrote above about Washington DC bears repeating (with one small correction):

"The law banning pistols for self defence was passed in 1976.
The homicide rate for the 16 years prior to the ban was 24.125 per 100,000.
The rate for the 16 years after the ban was 43.456 per 100,000.

Let's just say an 80% increase. Success by any measure?"
I presume that only the law-abiding observed the new laws and with the above result.

Really I don't think that literacy or general education has ought to do with the problem in DC or anywhere else. I've been in cities, ( DC would make but a suburb), where literacy is low and so is the crime rate
I wonder what would happen in East Timor if we disarmed the Australian troops?
Remember the great success we had in the Solomons?
We disarmed the shopkeepers and then under our 'protection' their homes and shops got burnt by the mob.

Thanks for your kind remarks, I think that most shooters are decent, same as most broad groups in society.

Mate, you need to brush up on your logic skills.
Your statement:
"if
<gun crime = criminals with guns>
then
<low gun crime = the law-abiding with guns>"

Does not follow logic at all. It's a statement that has no basis in actual fact. We can see this in regions across America with high crime rates and also high gun ownership rates. What generally characterises crime these regions is low literacy rates, low education standards and generally poor socio-economic groups.

Your idea that literacy or general eductaion standard has nothing to do with crime rates is laughable as are your examples of East Timor and the Solomon Islands that both have a history of ARMED tribal gang warfare. A group of shopkeepers opening fire on an angry mob, that would have gone down well. I can see why you would probably not be asked to spearhead a task force in any of these regions anytime soon. You cannot seem to understand that arming people generally also means giving criminals access to those same arms.

And what the catechism says about defence, try rereading the last paragraph that you posted elsewhere. I'll save you time:
"Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge."

I believe the key phrase here is: "those holding legitimate authority". I cannot think of a better way to describe it, and it also makes an important distinction between "those holding legitimate authority" and the "civil community entrusted to their charge". A distinction that you yourself do not. What the Catholic Church is saying here is that it upholds the moral duties of a police force to use armed force against criminals.It does NOT what mean what you think it does, which is allowing every man and his battered wife to own a lethal weapon if they think they are in danger.

Bugsy,

One man's equation is as good as another's. It's well proven that where the citizens are armed crime drops.

Literacy has nought to do with it.

We have been using Washington DC.

Why did the murder rate in that city rise by 80% after the disarming of the law-abiding? The people were just as literate.

From the Catholic Catechism,

"Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.".

2263 clearly refers to the actions of individuals and societies,
2264 refers to the rights and actions of the individual,
2265 does likewise and in the last sentence extends the individual right to those in lawful authority. It in no way limits the rights of the individual.

This is the interpretation of Australian law by our courts. There's no doubt that the right of self defence exists in Australian Law.

Is Mise: "One man's equation is as good as another's. It's well proven that where the citizens are armed crime drops."

I think that you need a reality check here. I find it surprising that you of all people would argue from a cultural relativist standpoint. Personally, I find that while one some statements can be supported, others cannot. While it is logical to find that guns crime is commited by criminals with guns, it is absurd to assert that the statement lower crime occurs when law abiding citizens have guns logically follows from that premise. In fact that statement is just an assertion that allows you to continue a line of argument that is far from "proven" that this occurs with just these variables, except maybe by a couple of pro-gun authors from the US. If you want to look at Switzerland again, then look hard. What is different in Switzerland to say, Sierra Leone? Or even the United States? Gun ownership by general citizenry is quite high in the US, why are their crimes rates larger than ours? Why are they larger than Switzerlands? Why is Japans lower than the US? Arming the population does not reduce the crime rate, educating the youth, investing the culture with strong values and reducing social alienation is what reduces the crime rate. But add guns to cultures without those values and see what you get.

And I am not arguing that illiteracy is a cause of crime, it is merely an indicator of cultural and social problems within the community of Washington DC. Reminding you of course that it is the capitol city of the most powerful country on earth, with a functional illiteracy rate of 30% in its adult population. Obviously something is wrong there, the opportunities for social alienation are rife. Low socio-economic status is well linked to violent crime, perhaps you should read more.

In case you haven't noticed much of US crime is drug related and the one thing that the USofA has that Switzerland and Japan and Australia do not have is a hundreds of miles long land border with a drug producing and drug trafficking facilitating neighbour, nor do we have the same degree of people smuggling.
The feeble attempts at people smugglng which Australia has to face in one year would not equal what the US has to face in one week.

Well done, now you're thinking. Lets give all the drug dealers and addicts guns eh? Oh wait, they already have them thanks to a rampant gun culture generated by a clause embedded in their constitution from the 18th century as well as a military industry that produces millions of weapons a year and needs someone to buy them. Aren't they lucky?

We have drugs here too you know.

Bugsy, are you going with the cheap shots the whole way? It seems to me you dodge the real issues by falsely imputing idiotic ideas which are unrelated to Is Mise's real views.

Yes, we clearly have drugs here, and just as many guns in drug dealers hands as they want - and yet somehow we don't have all that eeeevil American history you blame for the American drug dealers having guns. Why do Australian drug dealers have so many guns if those are the causes?

Actually Chris, those reasons are why the Americans will never get rid of their firearms problems. If the drug dealers have so many weapons, as you say, does it not make sense to try limit the legal availability of those weapons? Advocacy of relaxing the lax gun laws will not make that problem go away.

Since we do not manufacture weapons and so have to import them, the major source of weapons would be legal importation, especially with a relaxing of the laws. Increase the demand and you will increase supply, simple. But what happens when those weapons are stolen and filter into the criminal community? More guns to the criminals.

If you are so so concerned about the drug dealers, why do you advocate greater access to weapons? Since we can't tattoo a big C on the foreheads of criminals, the end result of easier access for everyone would be easier access to guns for criminals as well.

Cheap shots, cheap shots. Who says I want to make weapons easier to get? I have lived under hard gun laws most of my life, here in Western Australia. If they just organised rationally instead of combined fantasists' wish-lists of attacks on good people, I wouldn't mind them being strictly enforced.

What I dislike is the general ignorance of those who like tighter gun laws, and their nasty assumptions about decent people who own guns. In general they believe themselves better people BECAUSE they speak against gun owners. The political system results in moral auctioneering from ignorance and disregard of facts. Thats what results in the kind of laws we have.

Hey, I feel for ya Chris, I really do. You're not a criminal. But I guess it's your choice to own weapons and have a legitimate reason for doing so. If someone else makes assumptions about you because of that it's not your problem, it's theirs.

Personally, I make no assumptions about firearms owners, many people own them for different reasons, most of them legitimate. As a sporting shooter I would suggest that it would be a much more productive use of your time lobbying for changes that would actually make a real difference to gun crime in this country instead of having a big whinge about how ostracised you feel because of your lifestyle choice. Greater punishment for gun crime offenders would be a start, I believe the Shooters Party in NSW even advocates that.

Bugsy et al
Have a look at Gun Facts
http://www.gunfacts.info/
and refute away to your heart's content.

There are two things that won't change
1. The gun buy back was a failure and didn't achieve any of its objectives.

2. Allowing people to have the means of self defence cuts crime and saves lives.

And why anyone would want citizens not to be able to protect themselves or their loved ones is beyond me.

Perhaps they get their 'jollies' reading about the murder of the innocent or of rapes or just plain old bashings.

It seems to me that the "overblown rhetoric" that chris was complaining about is not confined to the gun-restriction camp. Any propoganda from the USA that supports gun ownership, may or may not be correct, but one thing seems to be for sure, what applies to America usually stays with America. Is Mise has already pointed out problems that America has that we apparently dont have, that contribute to their higher crime rate. What seems to be the general trend though is that the pro-gun lobby will borrow from anywhere to support their case. Any pro-restriction arguments need not apply to them because they are obviously false in their philosophy. But thats OK, I understand, gun ownership is an emotional experience on a fundamental level. Chris's analogy witrh wedding photos highlighted this deep attachment with weapons that gun owners have. I also understand the idea behind protecting the weak, if not innocent, of our society. This is also a fundamental emotional idea. But when presented with the reality of what happens when these unfortunates are attacked, the gun ownership arguments do not add up in the culture that we aspire to. Honestly, Is Mise, you argue that old and "weak' people should have better access to "self-defence" firearms, but how many of them would, given the chance, actaully take up that option? In Australia, how many ordinary citizens compared to citizens with possible criminal intent do you think would be attracted to the prospect of gun ownership?

I would also suggest that 60 years ago, many people owned guns and shot various animals for survival purposes. Those practices are superfluous today for the vast majority of our citizens. Should not our laws reflect this necessity or not? Should we continue to argue, as the US does, about our "freedom" to carry weapons? The very same weapons that our attackers may use against us? The prevailing idea about it all is one of attitude. I take heart in the fact that your attitude is not the majority view. The prevailing attitude is that guns are not necessary for civilised society.

That may well be the prevailing attitude, but no society can be civilised without guns.
Today no civilised society can exist without guns.
Wheather or no the citizens would take up the option of having a gun for self protection would be up to the citizen; we don't envisage compulsion.
It is a fact of life that armed citizens are safer from attack by criminals than are the disarmed.
How long since an Israeli airliner was hijacked?
Not since the first hijacker was shot to death by armed security officers.
What works in the air works on the ground, why do the police have pistols? What is the murder/robbery/bashing rate of policemen per 100,000 in Australia?
A lot less than that of the ordinary citizen it so happens, yet the police are on the front line against the criminal and they need pistols. Why do they need pistols? Not for the protection of the citizens because that is not part of their brief.
For the protection of property? Hardly,given the forgoing. Then it must be for self protection.

Pity then that the less vulnerable are afforded self protection but those who suffer more crime against them are not.

Prevailing attitude... yes, its easy to be morally superior when your comfortable life is protected for free.

Its really sad that taking my freedom is necessary for you to feel 'civilised' Bugsy. You take from us for your own self-approval.

We remove "freedoms" from people all the time for the safety of our society. What makes you so special?

Funnily enough, I view other people as as special as me.